Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): From the Department of Education, I welcome back Caroline Gillan, the director of access, inclusion and well-being, and Irene Murphy, the head of the special education and inclusion review team. Before we get into the substance of the new business, there was a Committee query on comment 1.8 in the clause-by-clause table, seeking information on educational psychologists' proficiency in the Irish language: can you deal with that point first?

Mrs Caroline Gillan (Department of Education): We contacted the Education Authority (EA), and there are four psychologists who are proficient in the Irish language. There is one in each region apart from the western region, but, with the single authority, there is the flexibility to deploy the four members of staff across Northern Ireland. That is the current position.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There are no comments on that, so I presume that we are happy enough. I do not see a suggested amendment.

Another outstanding issue from last week is on seeking a response from the Department to the Committee's suggested amendment to clause 3(2)(b), which concerns the duty on teachers, about replacing "take reasonable steps" with "take all reasonable steps": can you comment on that?

Mrs Irene Murphy (Department of Education): We do not have any particular objection. We do not see much of a significant difference between "take all reasonable steps" and "take reasonable steps".

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are members happy to pursue the amendment?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There seems to be reasonably common ground.

That completes the issues from last week's business, so we will start at clause 4, which deals with the Education Authority and its duty to request help from health and social care bodies. I ask the Department to comment on 4.1, which suggests an amendment to require obligatory cooperation, sharing of information, pooling of budgets and integrated planning between the Health, Education and Employment and Learning Departments. We have asked the Bill Office to consider what amendments that would result in. At this stage, we do not have the exact wording.

Mrs Gillan: On the overall duty to cooperate, the Minister has always been very clear that he welcomes a duty on the health side to provide therapeutic interventions if that is possible. It is not within his remit to put that in the Bill. When a trust determines that a therapeutic provision is to be set out in a statement, the EA has to decide whether that is to be included under education in part 3 or the non-education provision in part 6 of the statement. When it is in part 3, and if a trust does not have the resources to provide it, the EA must provide it because that is the part that must be provided. That could put pressure on the EA budget in engaging allied health professionals (AHP) and managing staff. If you do not have the absolute duty to provide support, there is an issue over whether the duty to cooperate is effective. If you constantly have that caveat, which is subject to resources, the cooperation can go only so far, but, if there is a stumbling block about whether there is the support that can be put in place, that would be the only limitation that we can see. Irene, have you anything else to add?

Mrs I Murphy: In the Children Order 2005 and our own SEN legislation — the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 — there are various duties to cooperate on responses to requests for advice from the Education Authority to a health and social care trust. As Caroline said, the one gap is that, when a health trust determines therapeutic provision, it does not have that absolute duty to provide it; that falls to the Education Authority. Otherwise, we see a lot of opportunities for cooperation, which, in practice, is in place through the existing legislative provision, with that one gap.

Mrs Gillan: In the context of therapy provision, I mentioned previously that there was an ongoing review of allied health professionals. It is to do with providing AHP support for children with statements. I understand that the outcome of that will be agreed protocols between health and education — the trusts and the EA — on the provision of AHP support, how that should be managed and where it should be accessed. As for what the practical outworkings of a duty to cooperate on therapeutic provision might look like, we are probably three quarters of the way towards agreeing protocols and looking at the issue.

Mr Newton: I suppose, to some extent, that that is good news, and it is three quarters of the way there. How long will it take us to get to the results of that, and when will we see them?

Mrs Gillan: I say three quarters of the way, but the AHP review has been going on for some years. The review initially looked at children in special schools with statements. This year, it has been looking at children in mainstream schools with statements, so we are moving to the final stage of a new regional model. I understand that protocols have already been developed, but, obviously, that is subject to ministerial agreement. We intend to put those out in the shorter term fairly soon, regardless of the final development of the regional model, but we are in the final stages of the AHP review. The Education Minister and the Department of Health need to sign those off finally.

Mr Newton: Could we have sight of those, Chair?

Mrs Gillan: I would need to check. I can go back to the review project board to seek a view on whether we are in a position to share those with the Committee. We will certainly chase that up for you.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I would find that useful. The Bill Office is drafting an amendment, and we will consider it when we get it. It is difficult to do that in the abstract.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I take it that the Minister is generally supportive of that further obligation, but I also read into it that there is a suggestion that that is unlikely to improve cooperation.

Mrs Gillan: We see cooperation on the ground, where a lot of work is going on. The problems tend to arise when there is a lack of resources, and the Department of Health has to prioritise its budget. That is the case when you may want to put in therapy provision. If the Department of Health does not have the resources, it often falls on the EA if it is under part 3 of the statement. The duty to cooperate and work collaboratively is the right thing to do, but, if resources are finite, there will always have to be prioritisation. While you continue to have the ability not to provide, it is subject to resources. Hard decisions may still have to be made.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Would the formal duty to cooperate not provide an additional — "sanction" is too strong a word, but —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Incentivisation?

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Or direction.

Mrs I Murphy: The 1996 Order is framed so that a health and social care trust will provide the support, but it is subject to resources being available. That is in the 1996 Order, and the clause does not amend it.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: There are stark statistics about delays in the process of statementing and the huge number that were subject to delays in the health sector and in some trusts. In layperson's terms, what, in your view, would a formal duty to cooperate do about that?

Mrs Gillan: Given that the process already provides for health and education liaison and provision and the exchange of information on a child, that is cooperation in itself. If there is a problem in a trust or in the health system regarding pressures and delays that are affecting how long it takes to get that information, I am not sure that that bites. That is not necessarily a failure to cooperate because they are cooperating, but the delay may be on the health side. We now have regular meetings with health professionals, and I am meeting some next week to look at that precise issue to see whether we can pull out some areas and find out why there have been delays and whether there are any simple fixes to free up more statements so that they can proceed at a faster pace. We are already doing that because it is the right thing to do. We are all cooperating, but, if there is a fundamental problem in the health system, unless you put in a very tight timescale, I do not know that the duty to cooperate will help.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If you have that meeting, it would be useful for us to have some feedback. That is one thing that has particularly vexed the Committee. If we are looking at the practical outworking of the issue, we will see whether an amendment to cooperate formally improves the situation or whether it does not make any difference. Target times for people to do certain things can apply a bit of pressure. If there is a target date, and people are told that a response is expected by such a time and a high percentage are missing that, it is important to drill into why the target is being missed. It may be that the target date is so unrealistic that it is simply not doable. Is it a lack of resources or a lack of cooperation? What are the practical difficulties that we need to drill into? From that point of view, there is no great harm in copper-fastening the cooperation in legislation. If we do all that and find that it does not make a blind bit of difference, the real litmus test for all of us will be whether it leads to improvement in procedures and whether it turns things round more quickly. That would be critical.

Mr Hazzard: Is it possible to repeal any notion of subject to resources?

Mrs Gillan: The Assembly would have to agree that.

Mr Hazzard: Maybe we could look at that. To what extent have you looked at the Children's Services Co-operation Bill? It may subsume all this talk and enforce a lot of duties. At Consideration Stage yesterday, amendment No 4 was about pooling funds and sharing resources. Does that go further and strengthen up any notion of resources?

Mrs Gillan: I think that that is right. When we discussed this issue previously, we thought that the private Member's Bill would overtake a lot of these things, so that in itself may give the impetus that you are talking about. As for the pooling of resources —

Mrs I Murphy: Obviously, the majority of the Education Authority's budget goes on additional teaching, classroom assistants or other supports. I do not have the figures, but a relatively small amount would be expended when a health and social care trust could not come in with a therapist. If the budgets were pooled, and the health trusts still had only a small amount of money, I am not sure how that would help. It would certainly need to be considered, and we would need to have discussions with the Health Department. The question of whether there were budgets across the two Departments or across the authority and the health and social care trusts would need to be considered.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It may well be — it is not over the line yet — that there is legislation that, time-wise, is further along the line than this Bill. If things move ahead as planned, the Children's Services Co-operation Bill will be on the statute book more quickly than this Bill because we are still a little distance away from bringing it to the Floor. We will probably get a draft from the Bill Office. If it becomes obsolete, effectively, because there is an overriding duty that covers all Departments, it is probably not good practice to repeat something that is already in legislation because it may be seen as a nuance or a contradiction. By nature, we cannot entirely take it for granted that everything in the Children's Services Co-operation Bill will simply all become law, but it may be an overriding provision that makes this a moot debate. Even with that, there is the wider issue, which Maeve and others raised, about the practical outworkings, which will be the litmus test, particularly the extent of delays in the statementing process. Irrespective of whether we change that by legislation, we are looking at that area to see how improvements can be made on that basis. Delays represent a very major flaw in the present system.

The Committee Clerk: For members' information, as the Chair said, there are similar provisions in the Children's Services Co-operation Bill, but they are not identical. It is my understanding — it is the member's amendment — that the Bill includes a power, not a duty, to pool budgets, and it does not specifically reference the sharing of information. Members are aware that there are some differences. As the Chair said, if it gets across the line, this becomes moot.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It could become moot or, alternatively, if we are looking at an amendment, it may be more nuanced to cover aspects that are not covered.

Mr Hazzard: That is one thing. The Children's Services Co-operation Bill has an enabling power to do that, but we may want to say that we require the two Departments to pool resources.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I suspect that, at the very least, we will have to keep a watching brief. We are due to get responses from the Bill Office on potential amendments at some stage. We can look at those.

We will move on to 4.2, which relates to the authority and the obligation to cooperate with other voluntary bodies. If we are getting a response from the Department about that, it might be useful to find out what happens in practice and how the Education Authority — I appreciate that the authority is at a relatively early stage — makes SEN parents aware of the work of relevant voluntary organisations. Maybe you could deal with that as well.

Mrs I Murphy: It might happen on a relatively ad hoc basis, depending, perhaps, on the motivation of voluntary organisations to make themselves known to the education and library boards in the past. It is interesting to note that there is the Family Support NI website, which came through the DHSSPS Families Matter strategy. It is a very comprehensive website, and it is available for parents and others to look at. It lists voluntary organisations. You can search for any area or town in Northern Ireland and find out what support is provided for, say, autism or hearing. It is a very comprehensive and thorough website.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Information may be very comprehensive and well covered on the website, but I wonder whether there is any way in which it could be made more proactive and directed. I know that that is difficult to answer because it is not within your bailiwick.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes. We think that there is a really good opportunity, when the code of practice is revised, for schools and others, not just the authority, to signpost parents to this website. We think that there is no merit in replicating that sort of information because it is very comprehensive. You could try to ensure that the authority, schools and others signpost parents to the website.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The suggested amendment relates to a requirement on the EA to seek help from bodies other than —

Mrs Gillan: That is slightly different from being able to signpost people —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that, which is why it is on two different levels.

Mrs Gillan: We already had that debate on the difficulties with the requirement to seek help from voluntary organisations that are not necessarily funded. Which organisation would the EA necessarily signpost to, and what are the strengths or weaknesses of various organisations? It would be difficult to place a statutory duty in that context. The website that is already operating has very comprehensive information, and the EA has its advice and information service, so I think that we have the mechanisms in place that can be used and be much more proactive in signposting and in making linkages with voluntary organisations.

Mr Newton: The Department advised that a health and social care trust:

and has to be able to give advice or assistance in connection with special educational needs to a parent. So health and social care trusts have that responsibility, but the Department does not want that.

Mrs I Murphy: I thought that what had been envisaged — maybe I picked up wrongly what the Committee is considering — was requiring the EA to seek help from bodies other than trusts. To me, you want voluntary organisations to come in and assist the EA, whereas the duty for under-twos in relation to the health and social care trusts is about informing parents that there are organisations that are likely to help.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): A duty to signpost.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes, which is different to what is being talked about in the amendment, which required us to seek help from voluntary organisations. As I said, you do not fund those voluntary organisations. Would there be an expectation to fund them? How can you quality assure the exact supports? Definitely, the trusts' duty towards the under-twos is about signposting. I am sure that, if there were a duty to signpost, the Minister would see that as a good thing.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If we do not propose an amendment on signposting, we might want to seek assurance on it from the Floor.

Mrs Gillan: I really encourage members to look at the Family Support NI website, because it is incredibly comprehensive. It will give you an idea of the quality and the detail.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I appreciate that. It is something that we do not want to put on the record.

Comment 4.3, more than anything else, seeks clarification on the financial implications of the Bill.

Mrs I Murphy: Since the Bill was introduced, there have not been any provisions about additional demands on the health and social care trusts, so there have not been any financial considerations in that regard.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do we believe it to be cost neutral towards them?

Mrs I Murphy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): That has, at least, been explored and scoped out.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes. From looking at the Bill and doing the explanatory and financial memorandum, there are no additional duties on the health side, so no additional costs were envisaged.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Comment 4.4, which is also from the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, seeks clarification on the requirement of the EA to request advice from trusts even when there are no medical or disability considerations. That has possibly highlighted dissatisfaction and confusion among parents on the respective information that needs to be gathered. Can you clarify that?

Mrs I Murphy: At the moment, the authority has a power to seek help from a health and social care trust, and it does that. However, we are trying to have greater consistency to make sure that, in all cases in which the Education Authority thought that a health and social care trust could help, it should ask. However, we are not saying that it would have to ask in all cases if it does not suspect that there is any health consideration.

Mrs Gillan: It is important to make a distinction when confusion may have arisen. That is a different duty compared with the statementing process and the assessment, whereby the EA must always ask a health and social care trust for advice. The EA may not necessarily always know whether there are any health matters with a child who is going through the assessment process. That is a safety net, and you could not expect the EA to be aware of that at all times. Many children may not be known to a trust, and that is one area in which we think that we could look at new procedures in the trusts, and, if a trust does not want to comment, the case could be speeded along rather than potentially waiting in a queue.

I know that there was some discussion about whether parents who are going through the statementing process felt that they had to be the ones who gathered up the medical advice and health information. That is not the case. The duty is on the EA to ensure that it seeks that from the trusts. That is a separate statementing assessment process to the general duty to seek help.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There are no other comments on that. Next is 4.5, which deals with clarification of the complaints mechanism. Do you have anything to add to what you have sent us?

Mrs Gillan: That was in relation to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) and the fact that you can appeal only the SEN provision and the education part of the statement.

Mrs I Murphy: That is in line with the information that we provided. The question is where allied health professional provision — say, speech therapy — is outlined in a statement. In the majority of cases, it is outlined at part 3, which is the education provision and is appealable through SENDIST.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There are no other comments on that. The Committee has sought clarification rather than an amendment on the last three areas. There is no particular issue of the Committee wanting to press an amendment.

Comment 4.6 deals with a suggestion from the Equality Commission to amend clause 4 to place the same obligations on health and social care trusts in respect of statements as apply to the EA.

Mrs Gillan: That is a similar issue. It comes down to resources. If it is in the education part, the EA has to provide it, but, if it is in the non-education part of the statement and on the medical side, the trusts, while they will endeavour to provide it, have the caveat or get-out that it is subject to available resources. It is a similar issue to the one that we discussed earlier.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There are no other views from members on that.

We will move on to 4.7, which comes from Autism NI. It supports cooperation and calls for an oversight body to assess the level of cooperation. We have asked the Bill Office to draft potential amendments on that to see what they would look like.

Mrs Gillan: From our perspective, the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) has a role in assessing the effectiveness of provision in schools for children with SEN. On the health side, there are similar oversight arrangements with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). I wonder whether there are existing oversight mechanisms — the ombudsman or Committees — that can request information or reports. I also wonder whether, in the context of the current budgetary climate, establishing an additional oversight body —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If you want to test cooperation — Chris will be more familiar with this than I am — presumably, the Children's Services Co-operation Bill has some broad monitoring or oversight mechanisms. I think that the idea is to make sure that that power is not overly burdensome.

Mr Hazzard: Yes, reporting is there, but it leaves off the need for sanctions. Reporting will be made available, but it will be open enough to be diverse.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will come back to that point. We have asked the Bill Office to look at what an amendment would look like. We will have to see what we receive.

Clause 5 deals with time limits for the assessment of SEN and reduces the time during which parents can provide information to the authority about a child's assessment. I will take the Department through the final remarks at 5.1 to 5.4, which suggest changes to the time limits for parents to provide information.

In particular, as comment on the background, there is the reduction in time limits, the kind of information required in complex cases and the impact of the change in reporting against compliance targets.

Mrs I Murphy: We are keen to reduce the 29-day limit to 22 days, with the overall aim of contributing to a reduction in statutory assessments in the statementing process. We know from evidence from four of the five former boards that almost 70% of parents who provided advice to the boards did so well within 22 days. In many cases, parents got back with a response almost immediately. There is merit in that reduction to try to contribute to the overall reduction of six weeks. There are still safeguards for parents who do not provide advice within that time. That will be one of the statutory exceptions that the authority will have. If the advice is not provided, they still wait for it and encourage it to come, but they are not then subject to the statutory time limit.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): What if we are dealing with very complex cases?

Mrs I Murphy: In terms of the advice coming from parents?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes, and how that should impact on time limits.

Mrs I Murphy: This is at just the very early stage. This is a stage when children will already have been getting support at school-based level with the new framework. There will probably already have been a psychology assessment at a lower level, so they will not be entirely unknown to the authority or the issues that the schools have been dealing with. At that stage, that will allow sufficient time to gather information.

Parents are not asked to provide information from health. They are asked simply to provide their own evidence of how the child's difficulties manifest in the home environment or when the parent is trying to help the child with homework and so forth. The parent is at that stage being asked to provide factual advice from health or social services.

Mrs Gillan: It is a form of one or two pages that the parent can fill in with as much or as little detail as they wish. The key is that there will always be flexibility. If the 22-day limit is not met, the parents can take longer if they need to. If that leads into a delay in reporting and is one of the exceptions, it will be similar to if we breached the 26 weeks at the moment. We provided the Committee with detail of the reasons for the breach of the 26 weeks. There already is a late-advice-from-parents element to that. That will continue, and we can do analysis. You can separate out where the delays were due to late advice. As Irene said, the majority of parents do provide the information. It is not that they will fall by the wayside if they do not provide it, but there is scope to take some time off the process without penalising them.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I presume that the time limits are in calendar weeks. I see a suggestion of a time frame in working days, but that would presumably muddy the waters.

Mrs Gillan: That would make the process even longer.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I appreciate that. Even on the broader level, everything else is in terms of pure calendar time rather than working days. To introduce a working days element into one area but not across the board would be a bit — OK.

Do members have any comments on this section? It probably applies a bit of additional pressure, but it seems that the general thrust is to reduce time frames. In the wider context, that seems to be sensible.

Paragraph 5.5 is about clarity in relation to the provision of health information to support a SEN assessment.

Mrs Gillan: As we mentioned, the EA does not require the parent to provide any evidence from the trust for the purposes of the assessment. We do not propose to change that. The duty is on the authority to request the advice from the trust, and the onus is on them to do that in the context of statutory assessment. We could provide better clarity on the process as we come to do the new code of practice and in the advice and information service. In the past, maybe parents felt it was up to them to gather the evidence, but we can re-emphasise that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There are no comments on 5.5. In 5.6, a degree of reassurance is being sought from the Association of Educational Psychologists, which is seeking confirmation that educational psychologists' role in statements will not change.

Mrs Gillan: Yes, and we have provided that assurance that there is to be no change.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments on that? That completes clause 5.

Clause 6 refers to appeals following a decision not to amend a statement. There are a couple of issues here. Comment 6.1 is an issue that was raised by NICCY in respect of the provision of advice and support to potential applicants.

Mrs I Murphy: Absolutely. There will be provision specified through the legislation and the regulations on the sort of information that the authority will have to provide to parents. It is absolutely the intention that all of the relevant information will be provided in relation to the assessment and in relation to where the parent can receive advice and support through, say, the Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Service or through mediation or whatever. That will be absolutely set out clearly.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments on 6.1?

On 6.2, we have asked for a draft amendment without prejudice to whether or not we would accept it when we see what it looks like. That comment comes from the Human Rights Commission on the rights of children to speak. Do you want to comment?

Mrs Gillan: Obviously, in that context, the key legislation is the SENDIST regulations, and those are for DOJ to take forward. I know that those are quite complex, so it will obviously be important that any proposed amendment takes into account the overall SENDIST process and, probably, wider tribunal considerations in terms of DOJ. Obviously, we can look at those.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Again, this is one of those complex things. We are getting a draft potential amendment for the Bill Office to make sure that there is compatibility. If there is an issue, we will want to share that with you when we get that. It is a little bit in the abstract at the moment. Any comments?

We move to clause 7. This relates to appeals relating to children under the age of 2. The issue in comment 7.1 has, to some extent, already been discussed. Do you have any additional comments to make in connection with it? If not, we will move on to 7.2. CCMS called for a compulsion on the EA to issue a notice in respect of appeals within a prescribed period. This particularly indicates that a regulation may be made in this regard. We have already written to you asking why you think that an amendment of that nature is unnecessary.

Mrs I Murphy: We think that clause 7(2)(10) already provides that regulations will prescribe the period in which a notice will be served on a parent. That will be replicated in regulations.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): This is on the basis that sometimes these things can be misinterpreted. Clause 7(2) says that regulations "may provide".

Mrs Gillan: Clause 7(2)(10) sets out the notice period, but, yes, the debate between "may" and "shall" obviously is relevant.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Again, I am seeking a degree of advice. I appreciate that you may not consider it particularly necessary, and we are seeking advice on the drafting options. Does the Department see any problems with "shall" in this case?

Mrs Gillan: I suppose that it all comes back to there being some things that you absolutely can stand over, and this is one where you would want to put in prescribed periods. Obviously, regulation-making powers, as we discussed previously, are there to provide flexibility and to reflect possible changing circumstances. It is provided that you would be able to retain some flexibility as regards what else may be included in the regulations at any given time.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are members exercised by this? I detect a certain silence on that.

Point 7.3 is, again, an issue around clarity in relation to the admissibility of evidence from school leaders to appeals.

Mrs Gillan: That is where we queried, because this is in relation to children under two. We found it hard to understand what evidence school leaders would necessarily have to offer in that context. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding on —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It may be. Is it the National Association of Head Teachers? There is a great ability sometimes with these things in trying to work through the acronyms. There is a broader issue that may apply if you are talking about children of school age or even nursery, but, if you are talking about children under two, it is difficult to see where school leaders will give evidence. Clarity has been sought, and it has been given.

Point 7.4 is the same again; it has already been covered, so we probably do not need to dwell on it.

We move on to clause 8, which deals with mediation in connection with appeals. Not surprisingly, given the nature of it, this generated a lot of requests for further information. First of all, we will deal with comments on 8.1 to 8.4 and the background to the mediation service, good practice to be copied, relevant timescales, the impact on SENDIST and the Department's plans for consultation on the mediation.

Mrs I Murphy: First, it is important to say that we see mediation as a good thing for parents and children over compulsory school age. It is in line with efforts to have alternative means of avoiding disputes. Engaging in mediation, as proposed in the clause, is not compulsory, but getting advice about what that mediation might look like is something that we want to see retained as being compulsory in the Bill. We see this process as being a quick one. At the moment, the parents have a period of two months from receipt of a decision from the authority, which is appealable, before they lodge their appeal with the tribunal. We want to see mediation being conducted quickly, within that two-month time frame, so that, on the one hand, we are not preventing an appeal from being lodged, and, on the other, we are giving parents the opportunity to go through the mediation process, conclude that by the end of the two-month period and still have time to lodge their appeal within the existing time frames.

Mrs Gillan: The key in all this is that the power rests with the parent or the child over compulsory school age who may be taking a claim. Mediation, by its nature, should be the first thing that you try before you necessarily go down a formal legal route. We are very keen to ensure — we feel that we have ensured it in the legislation — that there should be no delay at all. A parent will still be able to lodge a claim with SENDIST even while mediation is ongoing. If they try mediation out — even if they go so far as to get into a room with the EA or whoever — and it does not work out, the parent can withdraw at any period and still proceed with the claim that they have already lodged with the tribunal or, indeed, decide to lodge a claim, because they will still be within the two-month period to do so. As long as — we feel that we have ensured this — the power rests with the individual or the child, or the parent of the child, to depart from mediation at any stage should they feel that it is not working out.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To make it absolutely clear, in circumstances where mediation is taking place, any discussions will be completely confidential. From the point of view of, say, a tribunal, no inference will be drawn, and no information will be provided —

Mrs Gillan: No, it is entirely confidential.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do members have any comments? It seems relatively straightforward.

Point 8.5 is issues being raised about regular reviews of mediation. A lot of the issues under 8.1 to 8.4 clearly will be issues under regulations. Obviously, we will want to reassure ourselves in connection with that. To be fair, it is probably an area that very clearly lends itself to the regulations more than anything else. Point 8.5 is in relation to regular reviews of the mediation and appeals process. Are there any comments that you want to make in connection with that?

Mrs Gillan: We feel that it is a matter of good government to review arrangements at regular intervals, but I am not sure whether we necessarily need that in the Bill itself. In our accountability arrangements, contract management arrangements and procurement, there will naturally be an end point to any contract where you will evaluate how it has worked, and we would review the effectiveness of it at the end of regular periods.

Mrs I Murphy: In addition, Caroline has already mentioned that ETI will have looked at the Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Service. Moving forward, we will look at other arrangements where there are possibilities there.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Robin, I think you want in on that.

Mr Newton: Just very quickly, what is the length of contractual service? Are there any points at which you —

Mrs Gillan: We will have to look at procurement practice and what is the right time. There obviously will need to be a bedding-in time. You would want to make the contract long enough that it would bed in, but, as with any contract, if things are not operating appropriately, under contract law, you take steps there. I think that you want a certain element of bedding in, and the contract would have to be long enough to —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): You would want some opportunity for some level of break clauses, in case it was not —

Mrs Gillan: Exactly.

Mr Newton: At what stage would you think about those break clauses if things were not going well?

Mrs Gillan: I am only thinking back to other procurements that I have been involved in, or any contracts. If a service provider is not delivering a service effectively, you give notice or you break the contract,. There are different periods for that, and also notice periods for each of the parties to give notice, albeit that there can be penalties if there has not actually been a breach in the service. We will want to look at what would be the appropriate time to tie in with an ETI evaluation of the mediation process before we necessarily go out to tender again. Obviously, all that can be robustly built into the procurement process.

Mrs I Murphy: In the next session, when we are discussing the regulations, you will see that there are proposals around the time frames that the mediation service will operate. If a parent makes contact with the mediation adviser, they have to have a response within a period of time, and mediation has to take place within a period of time and meetings have to be organised. It is quite tightly set out. The expectation is that whoever is fulfilling the contract will meet those requirements.

Mrs Gillan: There will be tight contractual conditions and key performance indicators (KPIs) to ensure that you are meeting the timescales that we set out in the regulations and issuing certificates and holding meetings. Those will have to be reflected in any contractual arrangements.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will move on to paragraph 8.7, which is the "may/shall" issue in relation to the regulations. Do you want to comment on that?

Mrs Gillan: I keep repeating myself here, but there are some where I would not balk at saying, "The regulation shall include x, y and z" because it is very much our intention to put all the detail on the bones in the regulations, but there are others where they are more open-ended, which gives the flexibility for "and any other matter that may be required".

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): From that point of view, without bouncing into a particular position, there are a number of subheadings within that. Are there areas within that that are comfortable? I note that, in one of the earlier provisions, it differentiates between "shall" and "may" to give that flexibility. Rather than giving a response offhand, do you want to reflect and get back to us in relation to whether there are elements in 8.7 where you feel you would be comfortable with being tied down to a "shall"? I appreciate that there may be certain things that you want to be there, but you want to have the flexibility that it can change from time to time. I cannot remember on which of the earlier clauses where there was a differentiation between the two. Members, any other comments on that?

Clauses 9 and 10 refer to the rights of SEN children over compulsory school age. Do you want to clarify the definition of compulsory school age?

Mrs I Murphy: It is a child who has reached the age of 16 within the school year, so, at the end of that school year, they are over compulsory school age.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Paragraph 9.1 relates to regulations that permit parents to retain certain rights in certain circumstances. There may be a feeling that that might be insufficient, so we have asked the Bill Office to draft a related amendment. Do you want to speak to us on paragraph 9.1?

Mrs Gillan: I think that those circumstances are likely to be where the child may lack capacity to exercise the right, and that is what the regulations will give provision for. I think that we are also going to provide for instances where the child wants assistance or support from the parent. We talked about the UNCRC and the rights of the child quite a lot in the last session. We transferred the rights to the child, as opposed to leaving them with the parent, because the UNCRC is clear that they should rest with the child, but it advocates supported decision-making. That is where we feel the legislation will provide for that. Although the rights will rest with the child, which is what the UNCRC wants us to do, the parent will be able to support them. The issue of transferring them back to the parent or having some form of parallel rights — we explored the practical outworking of that in quite a lot of depth and, in engaging with the OLC, we found that it was very difficult to reach clarity and a workable solution —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): From that point of view, obviously we have asked the Bill Office to draft amendments.

Mrs Gillan: We will certainly work with you and have a look at those.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any other comments? We should get that back from the Bill Office.

Paragraph 9.2 is, again, an issue around clarity on guidance to be provided to children exercising their rights under this clause. Can you comment on that?

Mrs I Murphy: Clause 9 and the schedule ensure that the Education Authority will provide information, advice and guidance to children who make an appeal.

Mrs Gillan: There will be a statutory duty to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments anybody has in relation to that? OK.

Paragraph 9.3 is the "may/shall" issue again in relation to clause 9(2) and clause 9(3). I think that we are getting some advice from the Bill Office on that. What are your comments on that?

Mrs Gillan: That is for flexibility, and it is exactly the same issue. It may be helpful to look at all of these regulation-making powers and take a view about what would be too constraining and might trip us up later on.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): On a broader level, the Committee will consider that, if there are issues where there is an acceptance that there needs to be something, that will provide that reassurance by being clearly concrete and does not require the same level of flexibility, a nuanced approach may be needed. There may be certain things where "may" may be perfectly sufficient.

Paragraph 9.4 relates to comments from INTO. Have you any further comments on that?

Mrs Gillan: I think that we provided clarity on that the last time, so we do not have anything to add.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Anybody any comments on 9.4? OK.

We move on to paragraph 9.5, which relates to how the EA will take into account the age and maturity of the child in determining capacity to meaningfully exercise their rights. Again, we have asked the Bill Office to draft an amendment. Do you want to comment on that?

Mrs I Murphy: This is one of the areas where we are keen to engage with stakeholders and take their views on how, exactly, this will happen. We will obviously look to practice in other jurisdictions and will obviously look at some of the general comments from UNCRC in relation to the right of the child to be heard in terms of determining their capacity. However, we need to outline some key elements. For instance, in relation to the capacity of the child, we will look at a particular point in time when a decision has to be made or when the child has to understand the information that is being communicated to him. We will also look at the ability to understand the options open to him. Those positions will be set out in regulations. Again, that is one of the areas where, we feel, it is important to get it right, and we want to engage fully with parents, other stakeholders and the Education Authority in that regard.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments on 9.5? Paragraph 9.6 deals with the issue of support beyond the age of 19. I think that we will consider that at clause 13, so we will leave that for the moment.

In terms of clause 10, comment 10.1 relates to the "may/shall" issue. Have you any comments on that?

Mrs Gillan: There is exactly the same issue here. We need to take a step back and consider and maybe divide the regulation-making powers into two categories.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We move on to clauses 11 and 12. They reference the pilot scheme under which underage children may take appeals to SEN. Again, to drill down into the detail, comment 11.1 seeks clarity on whether the scheme will be extended to children who are over compulsory school age to allow additional exercise of the rule.

Mrs Gillan: That is where there has been confusion, because that is exactly what the actual main body of the Bill does. It gives children over compulsory school age the actual rights. The pilot is only in relation to children under compulsory school age.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There is not a need for a pilot elsewhere.

Mrs Gillan: No, because we are doing it.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do members have any other comments on 11.1?

Comments 11.2 to 11.6 are varying views on the pilots, including whether it should be abandoned, whether there should be an obligation to introduce the pilot within three years and whether it should be replaced by formal legislation. Do you want to give us any further information on that?

Mrs Gillan: The key thing for us is that we are committed to running the pilot. Although it has been in place, the England one has not commenced, and the Wales pilot has had only one child, which has been a disability claim. There is not a lot of evidence there to garner what is the right way to develop it. Given that we are introducing these rights to children over compulsory school age straight away, we will have a bit of learning there to see how that goes with the tribunal, as well as what is happening, hopefully, in England and Wales. We will need to then work with DOJ particularly around the arrangements for the pilot.

This pilot, when it is developed, will be effectively Northern Ireland-wide. As soon as it is up and running, children under compulsory school age, provided that the pilot provides for it and fits with it, will be able to avail themselves of rights. Our knowledge is that the numbers tend not to be that great, and we do not anticipate huge numbers, so we want that pilot to run for a good number of years. The Bill talks about two years, but, given the small numbers that Wales have had, to have an effective pilot and learning and to be able to fine-tune your formal arrangements at the end, you would possibly want it to run for a bit longer than that. Although people may blanch at the thought that it would potentially not be implemented in legislation for a good period of time, the fact that the pilot will be in place and will be operating for all children allows us to test it and then fine-tune it to see how it is going. Alternatively, it may not work out at all well, in which case it will not be appropriate to go forward with a permanent arrangement.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Robin, do you want in?

Mr Newton: Sorry, Chair. My question is for the end. I was going to ask whether we can see the Wales and England criteria for that pilot. That might be useful at a later stage for us.

Mrs Gillan: The information from England and Wales — their arrangements?

Mr Newton: Yes.

Mrs Gillan: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any other comments on 11.2 to 11.6?

Comment 11.7 is a specific proposal from NICCY in relation to age capacity. There appears to be a slight contradiction in that you have indicated that you feel that to put age limits in this way would be contradictory to the UNCRC. To some extent, there is a contradiction with that in clause 11(3)(a), which talks about regulations for the age from which the child may appeal or make a claim.

Mrs I Murphy: That would be regulations in relation to children under compulsory school age rather than breaking it into bands. I suppose that that is one of the ones that is a "may" or a "shall". Experience from the pilot may indicate to us that, for instance, the arrangements "may" need to be different for very young children than for children of post-primary age.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Surely, the way it is worded, does that not —

Mrs Gillan: It gives the impression that we may not open up the pilot to children of all ages.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I would read it as saying, "Well, that might mean, for example, that the regulations could say 'If you are 11 or above, you can do this, but below 11 you can't'" type of thing.

Mrs Gillan: No, we intend it to be open. It is more around if a child has the capacity and the ability, they would be able to take the claim. That is where we interpreted the NICCY proposal —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Rather than putting a specific —

Mrs Gillan: Yes. That is why we thought that the NICCY proposal actually restricted the rights. However, I can see —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It is a little bit confusing because, if it is really about the capacity of children to bring that, why make reference to the age at which an appeal may be made?

Mrs I Murphy: I think that that is in relation to children under school age.

Mrs Gillan: We were probably trying to say that it applied to primary-age children and above.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): At the very least, it suggests that you may need to do some tweaking of clause 11(3)(a) to make it compatible with what else you have said in connexion with that.

Do members have any other comments on paragraph 11.7?

Mr Craig: Is age the only thing that will be taken into account? That indicates to me that age will be the primary factor. What else will you consider?

Mrs Gillan: We will also determine whether a child is capable; it is also about the capability and the capacity of the child. Age is absolutely not the only factor.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): In terms of the capacity issue, which, to a certain extent, seems to be covered by clause 11(3)(d), which deals with determining whether a child is capable, you may need to reword 11(3)(a). Is 11(3)(a) necessary?

Mrs Gillan: At the moment, it talks about children under compulsory school age. That could, arguably, be from zero up. I think that what we were trying to do there was to say that the pilot will apply to children who are of statutory school age. I think that we were taking a power there so that the regulations then say —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that. At the very least, there needs to be some adjustment to the wording.

Mrs Gillan: We can clarify that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Paragraph 11.8 comes back to a not dissimilar issue that has been dealt with before: the suggestion from the Human Rights Commission that the clause be amended to make explicit the requirement that the pilot be UNCRC-compliant. That comes down, in part, to the earlier discussion about making a direct reference to that. Do you want to comment on the compliance issue, irrespective of the wording of the legislation?

Mrs Gillan: The pilot scheme is here because of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, so we feel that it absolutely is compliant. As regards compliance and the ongoing interpretation of the UNCRC, there would, potentially, be a problem if the interpretation of the rights of the child changed over time and we found ourselves suddenly in breach, without realising it. It is unnecessary because that is the whole raison d'être for it.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The issues in clause 12 were largely covered in clause 11, so I do not think that we have any representations on clause 12.

Clause 13 concerns the definition of a child. Maybe you could outline first of all where you see the demarcation line between your responsibilities for children undergoing educational transition and those of the Department for Employment and Learning.

Mrs I Murphy: A child can be defined as a SEN child right up to the end of the school year following their 19th birthday, so SEN provision could follow a child right through to the end of the year following his or her 19th birthday. The statutory school age ends at age 16, and many children, with or without SEN, will leave school at the end of that compulsory age. For those —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): From that point of view, does DE have responsibility throughout that full period?

Mrs I Murphy: Yes, up until the age of 19 whilst they are in school, but not if they are in further education.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It would fall into DEL if it is —

Mrs I Murphy: It would fall into DEL if they moved into a further education programme or training —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): So, either from a chronology of age or if they are outside school, they would fall into DEL.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will now deal with the specifics. The first item is on assurances on the issue of transitions. What mechanisms are in place to provide that support if a child moves from DE's to DEL's responsibility?

Mrs I Murphy: There is a statutory transitions process for children with statements. That is well embedded, and, in more recent times, that service has been supported by transitions coordinators who work very closely with schools, parents and children and with DEL and the health trusts to make the transition process more of a reality for the children. There are certainly opportunities that we would want to take in the code of practice to try to strengthen that process and to make sure that it works better for the parents and the children and that it is much more joined up in approach.

Mrs Gillan: There is also ongoing work in relation to a DEL-led cross-departmental group on post-19 transitions and plans to improve working and the post-19 opportunities for children with SEN.

Caroline from the Assembly's Research and Information Service referred to the ETI's survey report on transition arrangements in special and mainstream schools, which found that arrangements were well embedded in the education sector and that there was collaborative working. There are issues with the provision for a small number of children with challenging needs. There is some learning from that ETI plan, and we are working with the Education Authority's transition services to address any other recommendations and improvements that we can bring about with our collaboration and the support that is given to children. The Committee for Employment and Learning is also interested in that area at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. That was another point of clarification. We now move on to paragraphs that would either change or shift the goal posts in that area: paragraphs 13.2 and 13.3. In those, there is a suggestion that the definition of child be changed to an older age to allow the benefit of statements or, alternatively, that, in those circumstances, statements should be extended to the age of 21.

Mrs Gillan: As Irene said, the EA has a duty to maintain a statement for a child up until the compulsory school age. However, even in that last year there has to be a review. It cannot withdraw a statement without a review process and, if a statement is withdrawn, the parents of the child can appeal.

Mrs I Murphy: As I said, if a child's special education needs require it, a statement can be maintained up to the end of the year following the child's 19th birthday. That is —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): A couple of groups have suggested that 19 is too young of a cut-off age for statements and that you should look at an older age.

Mrs I Murphy: We have engaged with DEL throughout the process and have been assured that it feels that its processes for providing support to students with disabilities in FE and HE are very thorough and robust. It does not feel that there is a need to extend statements into FE or HE.

Mrs Gillan: I suppose that it is a different context. The statement is very attuned to the child in the particular school context and in the named school. That would be a different situation if the child moves on to FE or HE; there would need to be a new look at what supports would be required.

Mrs I Murphy: The needs could be significantly different as the child moves into FE or HE and becomes an adult.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Clause 14, you will be glad to hear, is interpretation. Unsurprisingly, no comments were received on that, so we will move to clause 15, which deals with commencement of regulation-making powers.

Paragraph 15.1 raises the issue of the high level of discretion in relation to commencement. That is not a suggested amendment but just seeking an explanation. Any comments?

Mrs Gillan: We approach this as we do any provision. There are certain provisions that we would want to commence immediately; others will require the regulations to come into effect. It is a purely practical outworking of making the new system work.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It is fairly common amongst [Inaudible.]

Mrs Gillan: We want the interpretation section and the definition of the child to be immediate, whereas others require us to make regulations.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do any members have any comments in relation to that?

Again, unsurprisingly, there were no comments on clause 16, which is the short title. The schedule has largely been dealt with.

Page 190 has a sub-table about regulations. We will touch base on the regulations, as it is in the schedule. I appreciate that we will come back in more detail on the regulations, probably next week in that regard —

Mrs Gillan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): — but we will just go through each of those anyway.

Paragraph 18.1 is about changing the regulations from negative to draft affirmative resolution in the Bill and parent legislation: do you want to comment on that?

Mrs Gillan: That is a matter for the Committee to determine. We followed the drafting conventions and the powers already in the Education Order because this amended the Education Order; that was why those were pursued.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments from anyone? I tend to think that, on a broader level, people sometimes get a little bit too hung up on whether it is negative or affirmative because from a practical point of view there is a very limited amount of direct difference that it makes.

Paragraph 18.2 is a suggestion from NICCY that SEN regulations should be required to be drafted in such a way that they support inclusivity and reduce bureaucracy. I suppose we are looking to see whether there is any amendment to be made in relation to that, but do you want to comment?

Mrs Gillan: I find it hard to see how. You will appreciate that some of the regulations deal with technically detailed procedural issues. I do not know how we could possibly fulfil a requirement that all the regulations would, for example, focus on inclusivity. The regulations are not of that nature. Those principles are more for a higher-level strategic approach or possibly primary legislation.

I am not sure how, say, a regulation on the time scales for mediation could promote an inclusive ethos in schools. If you are minded to say that all regulations must do this, this and this, I do not know how that could be delivered.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments?

Paragraph 18.3 is on the code of practice. There is a suggestion that the code of practice would require affirmative resolution or some degree of buy-in from the Assembly in connexion with that. Do you have any comments on that? Given the nature of the code of practice, particularly that there will be a reasonable amount of things that will have to go into it, there would probably be a keenness for some level of sign-off from the Assembly.

Mrs Gillan: Obviously, the code will be subject to full public consultation and early stakeholder engagement. It is incredibly detailed at the practical level, but it is whether the Assembly would wish to have that scrutiny —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I appreciate that if the code was treated in the same way as regulation, we would not have direct power to amend it. However, at least that would mean that it could not simply go through without any level of Assembly approval in that regard. I think there would be a reasonable enough feeling in relation to that. Paragraph 18.4 is about quantification and specification of support in statements and the fact that there was actually some suggested wording that came from the Children with Disabilities Strategic Alliance (CDSA). Do you want any comments in relation to that?

Mrs Gillan: The legislation already provides that the statement shall specify the educational provision that should be made, and it is not always the case that very detailed quantification is necessarily in the best interests of the child or in the interests of the bureaucracy and actually ensuring that the supports are put in place. If, for example, the statement specified that the child was to receive x number of hours for 12 weeks of classroom assistance, but after six weeks everybody had agreed that the level should either be increased or reduced, but the specification had been in the statement, you would have to go back to conducting a further statutory reassessment. So, there are pros and cons of asking for specific quantification.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments on 18.4?

Mr Newton: I can understand the pro, but what is the converse? Why would a parent not want to know exactly what the child will get?

Mrs I Murphy: I think that the statement does set out exactly what the child should get, but it is in terms of the degree of that. As we have said, there may be circumstances where, whenever the statutory assessment is completed, that it is envisaged that the child needs a particular level of provision, and, absolutely, it is right that the parent should know that, and that is set out in the statement. However, as time goes on and the child moves into school, the statement is reviewed annually, not termly. Therefore, at the end of a term, the child may well have either developed greater difficulties, other difficulties may have become apparent, or, in fact, they may be settling in very well. Setting out a level of classroom assistance, for example, in the statement to be increased or reduced depending on the needs of the child might be a very positive thing. Whereas if the statement were to say "15 hours" or "2 hours a day everyday", that could cause difficulties. Now, many statements do say 15 hours, but we think that what we have already in the legislation requiring statements to specify is specific enough.

Mrs Gillan: Where that is appropriate, they specify.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We move on to 18.5, which is an area that I think the Committee has a considerable amount of interest in. We have asked the Bill Office to draft an amendment in relation to that, which is the issue of statements essentially following the child rather than being linked in with institutions. I suppose that the concern is that, particularly where children change between schools, particularly whenever they did transition, there seemed to be a little bit of blockage in the system of that information passing along with them.

Mrs Gillan: Maybe that is confusing the personal leaving plan discussion that we had last week. Perhaps Irene can give a bit of clarity on what happens. The statement is specific to the child.

Mrs I Murphy: If a statement is in place for a child in preschool or primary school moving on to the next phase, it will be reviewed before the child leaves, say, the nursery setting, and the new school placement will be amended and there will be an amended statement issued, although the statement that was in place that said that, "such and such a nursery school" will obviously not go on into the primary, but it will be amended, and an amended statement will issue. There will not be the requirement, as there is at present, to go through the full statutory 26-week assessment period again. The statement will be amended, and that should take place at the —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Potentially, this might be more pertinent to the personal learning plan (PLP) rather than the statementing process.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes.

The Committee Clerk: Chair, in terms of the amendment that you have asked the Bill Office to draft, if it is the case that the Committee is now assured by what the Department said, then I will tell —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We are already getting a draft on the PLP side of it, are we not?

The Committee Clerk: Nine point six. You have the better of me there, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Look, from that point of view, there is probably no great harm at least in getting drafts. We may not particularly want to use those, and the assurance may be fine in that regard. We will take a look at that in the round. Paragraph 18.6 is a comment from the Equality Commission on legislation to make statements available to parents and children and be informed by them at all times. Do you want to comment on that?

Mrs I Murphy: I think that is in relation to a duty on boards of governors to make a statement available. The duty already sits with the Education Authority to make it available. The parent is issued with the statement and has ownership of it. I think that it would be complicated if a board of governors had to do it as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It is an unnecessary repetition.

Mrs Gillan: It is a duplication and could cause confusion.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK; are there any other comments on 18.6? Paragraph 18.7 deals with comments from the Equality Commission stating that legislation needs to make it compulsory for PLPs and coordinated support plans (CSPs) to be reviewed each term or annually.

Mrs I Murphy: There is a requirement to review statements annually in legislation. The code will set out good practice for PLPs. We want those to be reviewed much more regularly than annually. We will set that out in the code.

Mr Craig: Irene, when you say "annually", is that annually from when the statement comes into play, or does that tie in with the school year? That in itself could be a bit of a complication.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes, it is supposed to be within the 12 months from when it is first completed and the statement is issued. The authority would work with schools and parents to get a time frame for that. Typically, statements could be reviewed — depending on when they were put in place — from January of a school year right through to June.

Mr Craig: So there is no correlation between the school year and the annual review.

Mrs I Murphy: Well, they should be reviewed before the end of the school year, but it depends on when they were put in place. By the end of the school year, if a child is moving school, absolutely, it has to be reviewed before that so that a revised statement can be amended; however, if a child is staying in the primary sector, it may be later rather than earlier in the term to make those arrangements. There is no specific stipulation for the time of year that a statement has to be reviewed by.

Mrs Gillan: There is probably a benefit in that, so that it can be tailored to exactly where the child is.

Mrs I Murphy: Yes, obviously in terms of practical management by schools and the authority of the number of children who have statements, there is a period over which they are reviewed.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If there are no other comments, we will move on to 18.8, which is a comment in relation to setting out the three-stage statementing process in the Bill.

Mrs I Murphy: The code of practice has quite effectively set out the five-stage process, which schools and the authority have adhered to. Again, we think that that could be effectively managed in a revised code of practice for the new three-level approach.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Setting it out in the Bill is particularly necessary.

Mrs I Murphy: It is quite detailed in how we see that set out through the code.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Paragraph 18.9 is a comment from Autism NI suggesting that legislation is required to ensure that parents are provided with advice and guidance on statements.

Mrs I Murphy: There is already a statutory duty to provide an advice and information service to parents. The clause changes that for children over compulsory school age.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Is that from the EA?

Mrs I Murphy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Just to clarify, an amendment is being drafted on the PLPs, so we do not particularly need it on 18.5 as regards the statement side of it, because it is already covered in that regard.

Mrs I Murphy: In relation to advice and information, the clause makes an amendment to the duty on the board of governors also to make parents aware of the dispute avoidance and resolution service.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. There is nothing else on 18.9. We will move on to page 197 — we are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel — which is really a sub-table, including miscellaneous commentary on the Bill, so it is various issues that people have raised. We will just go through each of those.

Paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2 relate to consultation on the code of practice, seeking clarification on the code of practice and the regulations on the issue of consultation.

Mrs I Murphy: We hope, in the next few months, to engage in pre-formal consultation with stakeholders, parents, children, schools and others on the regulations and on the code of practice. We will work with individuals in the Education Authority who are professionals in their field to help to facilitate that process with us. We had quite extensive pre-consultation engagement and formal consultation on the SEN policy proposals, and we had hoped to follow a similar path with regard to children. For example, we would have engaged with primary-age and post-primary children, children in small groups, and children with SEN who had left school. As well as inviting them, we had a children's consultation document. Again, we hope to have available throughout this process all those children-friendly means by which we would gain their views.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. There are no suggested amendments. Are there any comments from anyone?

We will move on to paragraph 19.3, which is on ring-fencing the budget.

Mrs Gillan: I do not think that we have anything further to add to the comments that we have already made on the pros and cons of ring-fencing.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Has anyone any comments?

We move on to paragraph 19.4, which is on anticipating changes in threshold and the consequential reduction in the number of statements. Is there anything that you wish to add?

Mrs Gillan: There is nothing further.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I do not see anybody indicating.

Paragraph 19.5 refers to educational transitions for children with disabilities. Obviously, you have already provided some level of assurance on that. Do you have anything additional to add on 19.5?

Mrs Gillan: No, I do not believe so.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Paragraph 19.6 refers to additional costs with changes to the SENDIST.

Mrs I Murphy: The explanatory and financial memorandum looked at that. Where there would be additional costs, the Department of Education would make them available to DOJ.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Paragraph 19.7 deals with more general concerns about SEN provision. Are there additional comments to make?

Mrs Gillan: No, I do not think so; I think that we have already dealt with those points.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I am just judging that if there are no indications from members on each of these, we can carry on.

Paragraph 19.8 relates to the EQIA.

Mrs Gillan: Again, having taken our own advice about the EQIA, we are content that we carried out screening.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Paragraph 19.9 relates to additional training for social workers. Again, have you anything to add on that?

Mrs Gillan: We have confirmed that we are not responsible for the training of social workers.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Paragraphs 19.10 and 19.11 contain suggested amendments from the Equality Commission. They call for additional obligations on the authority and schools to disabled students. Have you any comments on 19.10 and 19.11?

Mrs Gillan: We had confirmed that the review did not consider the disability discrimination aspects of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Order. To make changes to that framework would require further consultation and consideration.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Has anybody any comments?

On paragraphs 19.12 to 19.15 — from Titanic to Gallipoli — have you any final remarks on those suggested changes to the SENDIST, including legal representation and the publication of decisions?

Mrs Gillan: We are content with the comments that have been provided.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Anybody have comments there?

Paragraph 19.16 is about determining the impact of the SEND Bill and the collection of supporting data. Again, there are no amendments.

Mrs Gillan: Again, we had explained about the annual school census role in that respect.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Paragraph 19.17 was largely covered under comment 1.8, so I think that we have dealt with that. Paragraph 19.18 is the Human Rights Commission's suggestion that a new clause be added relating to the UNCRC. Again, to some extent, those issues have been dealt with earlier. Do you have anything additional?

Mrs Gillan: No, we have nothing to add.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Have members any final comments that they wish to make? Obviously, the next stage of things would be to see the draft regulations.

Mrs Gillan: Yes, an early document that indicates what might be in there.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Absolutely — obviously surrounded by the various caveats in that regard.

Mrs Gillan: I want to manage expectations.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Given the nature of the legislation, it is useful that we get that.

Mrs Gillan: Can I just mention that today is Irene's last day in the Civil Service? She has been working on the SEN review for six years and in SEN for much longer. I just want to put that on record. Her knowledge, as well as her drive and determination to take this forward, will be a great loss.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): On behalf of the Committee, I thank Irene for her service. It has been very helpful. You have answered basically any questions that we have asked you. Maybe you are thankful that there were some questions that we did not ask you.

Mrs I Murphy: Absolutely. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Nevertheless, we wish you well.

Mrs I Murphy: Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are you retiring then?

Mrs I Murphy: Yes; I am escaping under the voluntary exit scheme and going off to pastures new.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We wish you all the best for your retirement, Irene. Thank you for your cooperation on this.

Mrs I Murphy: Thank you.