Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): With us in the first session is Maria Treacy, who is a parent of a child with acquired brain injury. Sandra Allen represents the College of Occupational Therapists and is the lead in service delivery for children's occupational therapy. Rosaleen Dempsey is from the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) and manages children and youth services. Rosaleen, I believe that you have a visual impairment, and, if I am correct, you would like each member to clearly name themselves at the start of their question.

Ms Rosaleen Dempsey (Royal National Institute of Blind People): Yes, please.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. For the sake of clarity, I am Mike Nesbitt, and I am speaking as Chair.

I understand that, for some of you, this is your first time in front of the Committee. I thank you for joining us. Please try to relax. We serve you, not the other way round. We are very pleased that you are engaging with us. We thank you for your written submissions, and we now look forward to hearing from you. One issue that stakeholders have raised consistently in this process is the potential benefit the Bill will have for children and young people with additional health and/or educational needs. We are very keen to hear your views. I ask you to, in order, make short opening statements. Maria, would you care to go first?

Ms Maria Treacy: I am Maria Treacy, and I thank the OFMDFM Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. Acquired brain injury is very much unknown and is, therefore, misunderstood. In my experience and that of the parents I have been in company with, children's services have been lacking to date, and we feel that the Bill has the potential to change that.

Ms Sandra Allen (College of Occupational Therapists NI): Thank you very much, Chair. I thank you for inviting the College of Occupational Therapists to give evidence today. The college's key focus and key message is on getting cooperation from the Bill. In occupational therapy (OT) services in Northern Ireland, we have a real and effective example of how the suggested level of cooperation can work on a day-to-day clinical level. I am referring to the roll-out of the housing toolkit. Cross-departmental development has benefited clinicians and service users and has delivered more equity in provision. The college wants to see the same level of cooperation replicated in children's services.

There are four specific areas that the college believes must be addressed. The first is strategic workforce planning at the level of service delivery. From our perspective, there are significant gaps in neonatal care, early years intervention, learning disability and the justice services. Occupational therapy provision within Education is one example of where the impact of that lack of planning is very evident. In that context, occupational therapy has very often been provided on the basis of long-standing goodwill arrangements, and that has resulted in fluctuations in the availability of therapy and accommodation in schools. Special schools, where, I understand, there is no cap on pupil numbers, are a particular concern for occupational therapists, who are expected to meet the growing demand. That needs to change. Secondly, our experience indicates that times of transition create anxiety and, in many cases, crisis in the lives of the families that we work with. They experience significant changes in professional personnel, service systems and support, all of which leads to greater uncertainty for the child and their family. The third issue is integrated service level agreements. In particular, we look to the present arrangements for the management of equipment. The lack of integrated planning and provision results in a costly resource being inefficiently used. The lack of such agreements also affects children's transport arrangements, where unclear accountability creates confusion and anxiety for service users, families and schools. The last point is on demographic changes in Northern Ireland. More children with complex needs are surviving, which is a very positive outcome. They will, however, need a lifetime of services, and that seriously needs to be factored in at many levels.

The college wants the Bill to result in Departments cooperating so that they deliver well-coordinated children's services effectively. Those services must be monitored and give clear lines of responsibility. They must focus on the child and caregivers and their needs, rather than on departmental boundaries and budgets. We want cooperation for all children's care, from the prenatal stage to transition, and we want Departments to work in an integrated way, with the child and their caregivers at the centre.

Ms Dempsey: First, I apologise that our paper was slightly late. I will refer to it in my presentation. I think that it will also be available for Committee members.

We appreciate the OFMDFM Committee inviting us to speak about the Bill. We are very pleased to be giving evidence today. RNIB Northern Ireland works to support children and adults with sight loss to enable them to lead full and independent lives. We have 72 staff and 272 volunteers supporting our work. The estimated total of blind and partially sighted children aged from nought-to-18 in Northern Ireland is 1,708. That is from the Northern Ireland census. RNIB supports 800 of those children and young people and their families across Northern Ireland through family support transition services and youth services. Our vision is that children and young people will have the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities as their sighted peers.

Looking at the Bill, I will say that RNIB concurs that integrated working in the development of children's services in Northern Ireland is paramount to ensuring both effectiveness in practice and better outcomes. While many services are doing great work with children, sometimes they are not working in an interconnected way. In a case study, I spoke to the parent of a child who has sight loss and complex additional needs. Her words were:

I think that we would all agree that it should not be the parents' role to fill in the blanks when services do not work in a joined-up way.

The RNIB Northern Ireland 'Looking Ahead' booklet is an example of when services have worked well together. The booklet was funded by the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership and the Northern Outcomes Group. We brought together statutory and voluntary agencies to contribute to that booklet.

Parents have expressed their happiness, I suppose, that they have something that will give them more of an idea how to navigate services for their children.

We support clause 1, which concerns the duty on Departments to cooperate. We add that it would be very good if they also worked with voluntary agencies. We would also welcome a standard referral process for families, even within the different Departments, such as Health and Education, so that there would be a system that is easier for parents and families to navigate when they are trying to get services for their child. While it is fundamental that Departments work together to further achieve the high-level outcomes from the children's strategy, we also think that it is important that each Department works with voluntary organisations in our services. The implementation of the Bill should enhance the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership's work and encourage other Departments to become involved. For example, the Department for Employment and Learning could become involved where young people are concerned.

On clause 3, in the context of the economic climate, RNIB supports the pooling of resources in times of economic austerity. However, we express concern about the cuts to statutory and voluntary services for children and young people with sight loss. We stress the need to protect existing services and the importance of early intervention for children and young people and their families. There is research from Queen's University in 2014 to indicate the existence of a relationship between disability and poverty. RNIB feels that, to plan services, it is critical for Departments to collect data on sight loss and other disabilities. We note that no data are collected on premature babies. We feel that such data would be very useful, as that situation carries the risk of sight loss and other disabilities. We also note that the registration and certification of sight loss is a voluntary process, and on several occasions it has not been communicated to parents how useful that can be in getting support and vital services for their children. We have some research from RNIB carried out in England in 2015 that reflects some of that.

We support clause 4, which amends the Children Order to reflect the Bill. We also support clause 5. We propose that there be a working group to implement the Children's Services Co-operation Bill, and we are keen to be involved in that. We think that voluntary and community organisations have a significant role to play. We are used to outcomes-based accountability, and we are also very used to being flexible and delivering services in times of austerity and change.

To conclude, RNIB thanks the Committee once again for inviting us to give evidence today. We know that the will exists to continually build and improve on services for children with sight loss and other disabilities and their families. We should bear in mind the wider legislation, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for better cooperation in future services. Our children have a right to the best services available, and that can be done only through multidisciplinary working. Children with sight loss and their families can face social exclusion and isolation, leading to an adverse effect on their mental health and confidence levels. If statutory and voluntary services can work together to intervene at the earliest stages, we can support those children and families and avoid the economic and, more importantly, the human costs of not realising their potential.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you very much indeed. I have some general points, as well as one that I think Sandra raised on the difficulty of transition points for young people who have additional needs, whether they are going from primary to secondary education, secondary to tertiary, or out of education and into employment. Does the Bill ease those difficulties, in your view?

Ms Allen: I think that it could. At the minute, that is a big problem, even within the health service, because there are children's services and adult services. The professional teams will change, as will the service. Occupational therapists contribute to a smooth transition for children. We help to support those with special educational needs (SEN) at the trigger points. Transition is a key time for children and their families. It is a very stressful time, in that they are not sure what route they are going down.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So, what is the Bill's potential?

Ms Allen: It would encourage working with Education, say, from when the child moves into school from home in the first place. We would work together, and the Bill would encourage collaboration with Education to get the child into school. As occupational therapists, we access studies in a school if it needs any adaptations completed before a child with physical disabilities goes in. We could build that in, which would encourage such working. It would be the same from primary to post-primary. The occupational therapist would liaise with the secondary school, and, if there was a statutory obligation to support that work, it would mean that it would be smoother.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): This is a question for all three of you; any of you should feel free to join in. As Sandra says, the Bill is about encouraging collaboration, and the point is to make it a statutory duty. However, there is no sanction for any individual, Department or agency that does not comply with the Bill.

Ms Treacy: Exactly. The regional acquired brain injury implementation group (RABIIG) strategy for children with acquired brain injury was introduced in 2008 and 2010. That was a missed opportunity. The strategy relied on the importance of the cohesiveness of the Department of Education working with Health, but that was not reciprocated. From a parent's perspective, it has not been fulfilled. A very good multidisciplinary team came out of it, that is, the children's acquired brain injury consultation service. That team, fortunately, is surviving, but it is doing so on very little funding from the strategy. However, it is oversubscribed with requests from the Department of Education, which requires it but does not fund it. We feel that there has been a missed opportunity, and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) has taken the opportunity this year to review the strategy to see whether it has been implemented. At the meeting I attended from listening to parents from all trusts in Northern Ireland, it was so obvious that children and parents have been let down and that there is no pathway. The needs of children from nought-to-23 are not being met. We have to wait for the report. Will it make changes? I do not know what powers RQIA has. Speaking for my child, I cannot allow governments to make strategies that are not enforced. They are not reciprocating on the need to work with each other, although they say that they will. I can give you examples.

I hope that the Bill will ensure that Departments do more than pool financial resources. In the model we have in Northern Ireland, the children's acquired brain injury consultation service team is made up of three members, all from the Department of Health. There is a clinical psychologist, an OT and a speech therapist. When I visited Cambridge in England, I found that a similar team has been set up with a peripatetic teacher. That practical link with education makes so much sense when you come to do statementing and transitioning.

I remind the Committee, too, that we do not have a rehabilitation centre for children here in Northern Ireland. We have five adult centres, but none for children. I am not going to question whether that is on a par with England or anywhere else; I am just saying that that is the problem at the moment. We really need to look at how we make school the centre for rehabilitation for these children. Children with acquired brain injury are left severely disabled. The Child Brain Injury Trust has been a fabulous charity and has given the parents I know a lot of support. Its numbers show that up to 75% of children return to a mainstream setting.

As parents, back in November 2013, we came to Stormont and spoke to Mr O'Dowd. He was aware of only 24 children with acquired brain injury in the whole of Northern Ireland. It was just unthinkable. How does the Health Department have large numbers of children with acquired brain injury, but the Department of Education does not know they exist? It has transpired that the Departments have different coding systems that are not linked. How does the Education Department have a SEN process that does not identify all children with acquired brain injury? It was even more worrying for parents to find out that we do not train our teachers on acquired brain injury. As parents, we have had to challenge the Department of Education to find out that there is no neurodevelopment training on the syllabus for teachers either before they become teachers or while they are in service.

We are at the point of wondering who we go to next. Do we go to DEL and ask it to change the syllabus for teachers? There are four colleges. Not one of them includes an element on brain development or impairment on their syllabus for teachers. So, a parent's role has become one where they knock on the door of the Health Department, the Department of Education, DEL and the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, the actual condition is misunderstood because its incidence and prevalence are not recorded properly. We do not have a fair idea of how many numbers are out there. We also do not have enough public awareness. Educational psychologists and teachers would not be able to identify a child with acquired brain injury. Again, when we talk about the school system, we are talking about those aged from six to 16, depending on the situation. There is no early intervention. For those who may not know, acquired brain injury includes traumatic brain injury and all other forms of injury. It includes the child who has been diagnosed with cancer and gets chemotherapy; the child who has had swine flu; the child who has had an electric shock; and the child who has had hypoxia during his life. The definition is misunderstood, and the numbers are misunderstood. The support is not out there. Departments are not working together. At the moment in Northern Ireland, we have one model of a multidisciplinary team made up entirely of health professionals. I am asking that the Bill ensure that we have at least interdepartmental staff on that team to bring expertise together.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Maria, that is a very powerful argument for greater cooperation. Thank you.

Ms Treacy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): First of all, I accept what you are saying about our tending to approach this through a purely medical model, while you are arguing for a more social and holistic model. To come back to the question, presuming that, like you, the parents you know, work with and share with see the potential for the Bill, what impact does the fact that there is no sanction for any individual, agency or Department that does not fulfil the statutory duty placed upon it have on those parents?

Ms Treacy: Unfortunately, you are speaking of the parents who know that their children have acquired brain injury. There is a large population of parents out there who do not even know that. Their children have been undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Sorry. Just to be specific, if the Bill goes into law as it is currently drafted, there is no sanction if Departments — say, the Health Department and the Department of Education — do not get their act together so that they can share information.

Ms Treacy: Children's potential will not be met.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Should there be a sanction? Should there be something in the Bill that says, "If you do not cooperate, there will be repercussions for your Department"?

Ms Treacy: The go-softly, go-easy attitude has not worked in the past. We have to wait on the RQIA report, but if it has not worked in the past, obviously we need a robust mechanism in place that calls these people to account. I know that it is moving sideways. Children with acquired brain injury may actually incur that injury at an early stage of their life but it is not identified at the time. That deficit will show up later in those children's life, way past school age. They may end up having behaviours that, unfortunately, gain them a criminal record. I have pointed out the social aspect of the Bill, but at the moment, while, we look for the inclusion of the social aspect, the medical model may not work because brain injury is permanent. It is a very negative place. That is where we are sitting at the moment. Parents with children with acquired brain injury would like us to move to where we are on a par with all children and to a place where there is a robust mechanism to ensure that all their potential is met and not overlooked, it is not petty and we share resources.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I have one more issue to ask about before I open it up to members. I am not necessarily looking for a long answer to this, but the legislation is going to use the definition of "young people" that the Commissioner for Children and Young People has in the 2003 Order. In other words, people who are under 18, under 21, in care or with a disability. Is anybody not content with that?

Ms Allen: That is fine.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Rosaleen, are you fine with it?

Ms Dempsey: Yes, we are fine with it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Maria, are you fine with it?

Ms Treacy: Definitely, yes.

Mr Maskey: I am Alex Maskey. Thank you for your presentations. They have been very compelling, I have to say. I would like to separate this out a wee bit. I think that all the parties around the table have made it clear that they are supportive of the general principles of the Bill, so it is our job to tease out how it can be most effective.

The Chair just mentioned the notion of sanctions not being in the Bill, but it is on the record that parties questioned other elements of it, such as how we make the Bill. If we are all supportive of the Bill, its intentions and potential, how do we turn that potential into a reality and into more effectiveness? That is what we have to tease out. So, we are looking clearly at some amendments to the Bill or to different clauses on its clear purpose and the outcomes we are expecting.

Maria, you clearly showed the need for a joined-up approach. Elements of what you said mean that some individual Departments perhaps need to do their work differently or better than they are currently. In fairness, you said that you would wait for the RQIA report.

I was interested in the point that Rosaleen made about a working group. If you have the strategic partnership in place, and the Bill is then put in place, why would we need an additional working group? You made that proposal.

Ms Dempsey: It is really just to share expertise between the statutory and voluntary sectors, specifically at the design phase of the Bill. It would not necessarily be an ongoing thing; it could even be at the beginning stages to pull in any areas of expertise. If you are talking about how we can put the Bill in place and make sure that Departments are working together to share resources, we in the voluntary sector have a lot of experience in that area that we could bring to bear in a group like that. I see it probably more as a shorter-term than a long-term thing. Perhaps I was not clear enough on that in my evidence.

Mr Maskey: Thank you for that. That is clear.

Mr D McIlveen: For the record, I am David McIlveen. I agree with my colleague entirely. As far as the Bill's objectives are concerned, we are entirely supportive of where you want to get to, and we have certainly made the sponsor of the Bill aware of that.

The problem that we have as legislators is that there is a very fine line between good and bad legislation. If the Bill was the end result, we would probably be on the right side of a good piece of legislation. However, we do not live in a perfect world. I do not want to be the prophet of doom, but I suspect that some Departments will look at this first draft and have some concerns about how they could practically implement some of the things that are being impressed on them. It will be only a matter of time before there is an amendment that has the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health or the Department of Education clearly at its source. We could very well find ourselves in a position six months down the line — I am conscious that we have some friends from the Law Centre who may want to pick up on some of these points — where we have a Bill that has been diluted beyond recognition. If that is then the final Bill that gets through the Assembly, we will have done you a very great disservice, in that we will have implemented bad legislation that has brought more confusion than clarity to the issue.

In that context, I suppose that what I would like to ask you — as, obviously, an interested group that knows the sector inside out and what the needs are — is what could be achieved outside the legislative route that would bring about the same outcomes. What I am trying to get at is whether guidelines would be a consideration. If the Department were to issue guidelines which compelled other Departments to work together — "This is the mode of practice that needs to be used in order to deliver the outcomes that families of children and young people are expecting" — that would circumvent the legislative route and take away the risk of something disastrous happening.

As I say, I do not want to sound as though I am writing this Bill off before it even comes to its final stages, but I suppose that all of us around the table here on the legislative side have been doing this long enough now to kind of know how it all plays out. My concern would be that we find a Bill that will ultimately completely dispel your aspirations. That would be a travesty. It would be a huge missed opportunity, and one that must be avoided at all possible costs. How do you respond to that? How would you feel if you were given the choice between a bad piece of legislation and improved guidelines? What would your choice ultimately be if it came down to that thin edge of the wedge?

Ms Allen: Guidelines have their place. There are examples of where they work. Within the education system, there is the statementing process, which is a legislative process, and the health service, allied health professionals and nurses feed into that. We follow guidelines to feed into that. There were no resources that came with that: it is additional work for us. The system works; it is just not being backfilled with the funding and resources to accommodate it. Certainly, guidelines do work, but it is about the way they would be implemented and resourced.

Ms Treacy: The Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership is an example of agencies cooperating well with each other. It was based on goodwill. If those guidelines worked or had been working, the parents of children with acquired brain injury would be saying that they felt that their children's needs were being met. We are here today saying that they are not being met. There is something terribly wrong. Yes, there have been educational reforms. Now, there is this Bill. There has to be an overarching opportunity to manage this in a way that is implemented with the most effective and efficient use of resources. Unfortunately, I am hearing that service users are saying that service providers are cooperating. That does not materialise. You have only to go through the legislative statementing process; it is medical advice with educational advice. It does not come shared. Recently, I was told that if you get both literacy support from education and speech therapy from your local health or child development clinic, your child is over-resourced. It seems that what they are trying to do is not to meet the child's needs, but to run away from responsibility. From my experience, it is not working. On paper, theoretically, it is. I do not know what guidelines there would be or who would articulate them. How would they be implemented any better than this Bill? If you can get guidelines and we do not have to wait for this Bill, please go for it. That would resolve some of the issues that I have today.

Ms Allen: I certainly agree with Maria. There are times when they do not work, too.

Ms Treacy: Yes, unfortunately.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Rosaleen, did you want to comment?

Ms Dempsey: I agree with what was said. There are guidelines in place, but they have not necessarily led to multidisciplinary working at all levels. In the case study that I referred to, for example, a parent talked about a teacher of the visually impaired who was not invited to the child development clinic meeting about her child. In England and other parts of the UK, that is a standard good-practice model that would often happen. My question is why, with our guidelines about working together, that is not happening right now. If there were a strengthening of guidelines, I would support it. It could help the process.

Mr D McIlveen: It is a really important question, and we need to get an answer to it as well. If there are guidelines, why have they not been working? That is something that we could do further work on.

Ms McGahan: Thank you for your presentation. My name is Bronwyn McGahan. I am not sure whether you are aware of the current inquiry by the Employment and Learning Committee into the provision of special educational needs. It has been going on for the past several months. We have done extensive engagements with parents. We are well aware of some of the issues that are being flagged up. In terms of transition processes, I do not believe that this Bill will sort out the problem. Even if you had a smooth and excellent transition process, the bottom line is that there is nowhere for those kids to go. As a representative of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I am continuously experiencing this issue. We need more provision at FE colleges. For example, we engaged with a parent whose severely autistic child was learning to tile. It was not appropriate for her. That is something that we are currently looking into.

Transport is an issue as well in rural areas. For example, an autistic child who gets transport to the FE college needs to be met by someone to take her to the classroom. That does not exist either, which means that a parent has to drive 10 or 15 miles to the local college. I have also been involved in meetings locally with Health. The issue that is continuously raised by parents is education. The response is, "We don't have a statutory duty to deal with education." That is what you are dealing with.

You mentioned a very important point regarding the lack of information. No information regarding the number of kids with disabilities and the type of disabilities is recorded. Maybe it should be a legislative requirement. When you have that information, it will have to be resourced, or resources will have to be pulled in the right direction. Did you make a submission to that inquiry? I find some of your stuff to be very useful.

Ms Treacy: I would have liked to, but when I found out about it, it had already closed. We would be willing, and we wrote to the Department of Education saying that we would offer ourselves to Frances Curran and that we would provide support in any way that we could. A new audit of acquired brain injury and educational psychology is to take place this year, and we have offered to input into that. If you look at the Department of Education's reforms, brain injury does not feature at the moment with one specific charity representing it.

Ms McGahan: Your presentations are very useful. It is a pity that that Committee has not had sight of those. It definitely would help to feed in to formulating recommendations. It is something that I will raise with the Chair of the Committee, Robin Swann. Some of this stuff is very important.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Bronwyn, if you are agreeable, once we have the transcript from Hansard, we will send it to Robin and the Employment and Learning Committee for their attention. I think that we all agree; you are right on that point.

Mr Spratt: Thank you for the presentation. Jimmy Spratt is my name. In terms of the bureaucratic process, there is a danger of creating another level of a reporting process. I assume that one of the outcomes that all of us around the table want to see is delivery that will really impact on the lives of children and young people as opposed to creating another bureaucratic nightmare where we have fat-cat lawyers regularly at the courts for judicial reviews of this, that and the other thing. Let us face it: that is taking money away from where it is needed, whether for equipment or for the adaptations that you make for various disabilities. It is very simple to talk about pooling resources, but you are a practitioner. How do you pool resources from various Departments and ensure accountability without you having to sit at your desk for an extra x hours writing reports that go to some other desk, so that they are passed from desk to desk like squares on a chess board? There is a danger of creating that, or another quango. Really, at the end of the day, the outcome would not be for the important people, the children and the young people. How do we as legislators get around that and make sure that nightmare is not foisted on you as the folk who deliver?

Ms Allen: You make a very valid point. The occupational therapist will assess and make a recommendation on equipment for special schools; however, it is the Department of Education or the school itself that will purchase the equipment. They then have responsibility for maintenance, recycling, infection control and everything else, because they own the equipment, and that has caused a lot of difficulties. It means that the equipment is not recycled in the way it should be, which is inefficient from a financial point of view. It would be good if there was some way of bringing that into this. One idea that we had was for a children's Department, overarching a number of Departments, such as Education and Health.

Mr Spratt: We are trying to reduce the number of Departments, remember. [Laughter.]

Ms Allen: It would be accountable and answerable, and I do not know if services would be —

Mr Spratt: We do not want to create more jobs just for the sake of it, because it takes money to pay for all that, and it is not getting to the area that needs it. I am just interested to hear what you feel about this. Most of us around the table agree that money could be much better spent from the centre for somebody with disability or who requires an educational process or whatever. However, each Department has its own resources. There needs to be accountability in all of this, because we all know what has happened to accountability in the past. We must be accountable for money from the public purse.

Ms Allen: Another issue is the number of therapy hours that go into schools. There is no statutory obligation for that, so it is a variable feast where the demand is.

Mr Spratt: So you oppose creating another level of bureaucracy, but you are saying very clearly that we need to get the resources to the coalface, where they are needed.

Ms Allen: Definitely, the resources are needed at the coalface.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thanks very much to all of you, folks. We are aware that all Governments, not just the Executive here, traditionally work vertically in silos, with health, education and social development. Yet you only really make an impact on people's lives when you come through horizontally and get people working together. Your testimony has struck hope, and I thank you for it; it will impact on our thinking as we move this Bill forward.

Ms Allen: Our housing toolkit, which I referred to, was done with DSD and the Department of Health. Within that, there was an appointment. Padraig O'Brien is the man's name. He has an OT background and training, and his post is jointly funded by DSD and the Department of Health. He was there to channel that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Sandra, thank you very much. Rosaleen and Maria, thank you very much.