Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You are all welcome. Minister, I thank you and your officials for your attendance at the Committee today. We are joined by the Minister of Education, Paul Givan; Ronnie Armour, the acting permanent secretary at the Department; Linsey Farrell, deputy secretary covering education policy and children's services; and Heather Cousins, deputy secretary. I thank you for the time that you been prepared to give to the Committee today. A two-hour evidence session is probably more than we expected, so that is welcome.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): You might regret it. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will see who regrets it at the end. It might be 50:50 by the end of things. We will see how we go.

At the outset, I will say, and these are not in any particular order, that the Committee has been clear that it wants to look particularly at special educational needs (SEN) and educational underachievement. The Committee has identified those as key strategic priorities, so we will ask specific questions on them, but we also wanted to leave time for open questioning so that members can cover other issues. It feels appropriate to go to an open forum of questioning first. We will do that after an opening statement, but I propose to do things in that order.

In order to get things started, I am happy to hand over to you, Minister, or to your officials for any opening remarks you might want to make. We have two hours, which, as I emphasised, is a good length of time for an evidence session, but I invite you to make an opening presentation of up to 10 minutes so that we have as much time as possible for questions and answers.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Chairman. I will not reintroduce the team, as you have already done that for me. I will go through the opening statement, which covers a broad range of issues, and then I will be happy to move to questions. It goes without saying that I am always pleased to have the opportunity to engage with the Education Committee, and I know that today you will want to focus on a number of specific areas.

Over the last number of weeks and months, I have set out my priorities and a clear agenda for change. Over the next weeks and months, I intend to build on that in moving forward with the next steps for education in Northern Ireland. I have been clear that a highly educated population is vital to Northern Ireland's prosperity. Those who are better educated are more employable, earn more, are healthier and live longer. We cannot afford for anybody to be left behind.

On 21 October, I made a statement to the Assembly on the independent review of education, and I published a response to each of the review's recommendations. Together, the review panel's recommendations form an important blueprint for the next two decades of educational improvement and reform. The review panel clearly recognises that its report provides a longer-term framework for progressive reform and will require a plan for phased implementation.

In the autumn, I drew on the independent review's report to set out my immediate priorities for a sustained and evidence-based approach to the improvement of the education system. Alongside the critical work of special educational needs reform, which is a key priority for the Executive as a whole, my focus will be on the core areas of curriculum, assessment, qualifications, school improvement and tackling educational disadvantage. Reform in each of those areas will be underpinned by investment in all aspects of teacher professional learning and leadership development, all wrapped in an intelligent accountability framework.

My approach is intentional. Educational research is clear that high-quality teaching and learning are at the heart of driving educational improvement. Successful school systems ground changes in the classroom, focusing first and foremost on teachers and the content that they deliver. Those areas received limited focus or investment during the past decade, and all need reflection, evaluation and improvement.

For too long, we have focused on structural issues in Northern Ireland, whether they be academic selection or the types of schools. We need to focus on what children learn, how they learn and for what purpose. That is why I have embarked on a comprehensive approach that focuses on supporting teaching and reforming curriculum, assessment, qualifications and school improvement, all of which are fundamental to educational excellence. The next steps for education in Northern Ireland must be underpinned by a commitment to investment and reform in each of those areas. That is not a task for any one individual or group but a shared responsibility. Let me be clear that each of you has a role to play. I am committed to working closely with our schools, teachers, parents, pupils and communities to ensure that we move forward together.

I will move on to some of the issues that, you indicated, you wished to discuss. On 13 January 2025, I set out to the Assembly my vision for an ambitious programme of reform for ensuring that our education system is structured and equipped to effectively meet the needs of children with special educational needs. I have now published the final special educational needs reform agenda and delivery plan. I welcome any questions that Committee members have about that and hope that they appreciate how those documents reflect my commitment to drive forward that change agenda during my mandate.

My programme of reform has a clear focus on delivering earlier intervention and ensuring that, without relying entirely on referrals to external support services, school leaders, teachers and educational staff have the resources and skills needed to provide support for children and young people who have or may have a special educational need in school. As I set out in my statement, where schools need to access external support services, those must be delivered by experienced expert professionals and be easily accessible to schools. My aspiration is that enhanced in-school support, which means that more effective and responsive support services are delivered directly to the children and young people who need it, will increase confidence in the system that needs can be met without recourse to a statement in all cases. We must also recognise the role of our special schools and the expertise that is in them, placing them at the heart of area learning communities to support inclusion across the wider school system.

Reform on that scale cannot be a quick fix. It will take time. Be assured, though, that some actions are already under way or are due to begin imminently. Streamlining the assessment and special educational needs placements process will commence. The Education Authority's (EA) 'Operational Plan 2: 2024-26' was published on 16 January this year and prioritises strategic area planning for special education. Preschool education settings will receive additional resource for children who are undergoing statutory assessment, and that commenced in November 2024 at an estimated total of £1·2 million in this financial year. The Education Authority will implement its graduated response framework and its new local impact teams model for pupil support services. The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) has been commissioned to evaluate specialist education provision, including in early years foundation stage provision.

I mentioned that tackling educational disadvantage is one of my clear priorities. My Department already has a wide range of policies and interventions in place. Over £80 million is invested annually in programmes such as targeting social need (TSN), the extended schools programme, the full service programmes and existing locality-based programmes. All those interventions will help to ensure that an equitable foundation of support for our children and young people is in place to enable all children and young people to succeed.

A key area in the 'A Fair Start' action plan is:

That approach matters, because a child spends only 14% of their life until adulthood in a classroom and in compulsory education. A whole-community approach to education extends beyond the school gate and means that children and young people are supported in all contexts in which their life is lived. It recognises that, from pre-birth to young adulthood, there is a learning and support continuum for children and their families or carers, and it recognises the multiple pathways that can be available.

I announced the RAISE programme in May last year. Since then, significant engagement has been taking place in 15 localities across Northern Ireland to support the development of bespoke local strategic area plans. Those plans will set out the key activities that are needed to raise attainment and aspirations in those areas. I recognise that the Committee has a significant interest in that area and that questions have been asked about the methodology that was used for selecting the areas in which the programme will operate. I have published that methodology and the data. I have said previously that we know that a community is not defined by a red line on a map and that there will be flexibility. I reiterate that message today. I have advised my officials that, whilst the programme should focus mainly on meeting the needs of children and young people who live in RAISE localities, there should be a degree of flex in how the funding is spent across a wider area of influence. My officials are finalising the details of the processes to support the roll-out of the programme and will engage directly with localities in the coming weeks. They will be happy to provide a further briefing to the Committee on the detail of that.

Rightly, there has been much focus on early years and childcare. I am committed to bringing forward an early learning and childcare strategy by the autumn of this year that will support child development, make childcare more affordable and enable parents to work. In advance of that and recognising that people needed immediate help, I secured £25 million of Executive funding in May last year to implement a package of measures in this financial year. That investment is already making a real difference to thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland. I have secured £50 million in the draft Budget for 2025-26, which will enable us to maintain the momentum into next year. Crucially, it will allow the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme to continue beyond March, which will be good news for the thousands of families that benefit from it every month.

The Committee is interested in school uniforms. I am delighted that the consultation on school uniform policy received such a high volume of responses and that the clear majority of those support the policy proposals. My Executive colleagues also agreed those policy proposals on 5 December last year. I am pleased, therefore, to say that, through the drafting work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the policy instructions of my officials, a final draft Bill was completed in January of this year. That represents a significant investment of time from OLC, and I record my thanks for that. I can update the Committee by saying that I have written to my Executive colleagues seeking agreement to the school uniforms Bill and for me to introduce it to the Assembly. I hope shortly to obtain that agreement, following which I will write to the Speaker to confirm a date as soon as possible in the immediate weeks to come on which I can introduce the Bill to the Assembly. My officials are scheduled to provide an oral briefing to the Committee in March, and I thank you in advance for the scrutiny that, I know, you will afford the Bill, which forms an important part of how we can make good legislation in the Assembly.

Whilst we can discuss those points at length, the next steps for education in Northern Ireland must be underpinned by a commitment to investment and reform to ensure that our education system is truly world-leading, excellent, equitable, inclusive and able to meet the needs of all children and young people in an ever-changing world.

Mr Chairman, those are my opening remarks, and I am now in your hands for the rest of the meeting.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Minister, and thank you for pretty much keeping to time. It is appreciated. As I said at the outset, we will break the session into three sections to make sure that we can cover a range of issues. We will begin with an opportunity for members to ask open questions.

I will make a start. I want to ask you about the £710,000 investment in the pitch at Lisneal College, which was discussed on Monday in the Assembly. Will you confirm whether, following the meeting in June 2024, you or any departmental official brought any influence to bear on the prioritisation of or expedition of that project in any way?

Mr Givan: I confirm that I did not bring any influence to bear, and the Education Authority confirmed over the weekend that no influence was brought to bear on its decision-making process as a result of my engagement on the project.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for a clear answer for the record, Minister. It is appreciated. To broaden that out a little, do you accept that, over the weekend, when the story was being covered in the media, there had been a pattern of confused and quite confusing communication? We had a very late-night statement from the EA on Friday, which felt unusual. It then transpired that some of the information in that on the usage of the pitch was inaccurate. It then transpired that information on your Department's website about the amounts that were being suggested for thresholds for minor works was extremely inaccurate. Still looking at the Department's website, I see that it now has no monetary figures associated with those thresholds. Confusion seems to have been heightened by the communications on this. Do you accept that the EA or your Department has any role to play in the fact that some of those questions continue to be asked rather than a line being drawn on the issue?

Mr Givan: I will try to answer as sequentially as possible. You talked about the statement that went out late. The EA was providing a statement to provide clarity. I could see that Members, some of whom sit on the Committee, had been tweeting and putting out inaccuracies about the story. Therefore, it was necessary for a statement to go out. Everyone would agree that it should not have gone out at the hour at which it did. The intention was for it to go out on Sunday, because details were being finalised. It was my view that it was better to get information from EA out. EA acknowledges that the information that was provided about the pitch not being used from 2019 was inaccurate. Undoubtedly, that is regrettable. I spoke to the principal of the school yesterday, and it was one of his frustrations that, had it been contact with him, he could have provided that information to EA, which would have made for a more accurate statement.

Information on the figure of £500,000 was provided through freedom of information requests that came into the Department. The information was there that that figure was not the accurate one for the delegated limit. Again, the Department holds its hands up and says that that was an oversight and should have been removed. The delegated limit changed quite a number of years ago, so the website should have been updated. Of course, when it was brought to my attention that that information was still there, I was clear that it should be removed, because I could see why people may, wrongly, draw inferences from it being available. I accept the premise of your question that that information has fuelled part of the story, but it does not change the fundamental aspects of the story, which relate to a process that is taken and carried through by the Education Authority and not by me, as the Education Minister, as some have implied.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for that, Minister. Will you confirm that the threshold for minor works is up to £1 million and that that is now the accurate figure that we should look at when we are dealing with these issues? There is now no information on the Department's website to reflect a monetary threshold.

Mr Givan: Given that I have, of course, been asking those questions, I can assure you that £1 million is the delegated limit. However, there are processes, and all the relevant stakeholders know what the limit has been and how those processes have operated since they changed. I am happy to give the precise date on which that change took place.

By way of some information, I will give you an example of the delegated limit of £1 million being used. Ronnie will keep me right, but I believe that the change took effect in 2017, which shows how far back it goes. One example of funding for that speaks to the question of whether there are schemes deemed to be minor that go over the £1 million mark. There are, and, at that point, the Department is engaged by way of a business case, because the Education Authority needs permission. If the cost is under £1 million, however, it does not.

In March 2019, at St Kevin's College, £1·5 million was approved on a minor works scheme that provided new modular units, six general classrooms and sixth-form accommodation. It was there to implement an approved development proposal. That work was over the £1 million mark, and, because of that, the Department was engaged as part of those minor works schemes. In the Foyle constituency, where Lisneal College resides, other schemes have been approved. Work was approved for Holy Child Primary School at a cost of £960,000, and that was for replacing three mobile classrooms and three modular units. I relayed other examples in the Assembly. I said that £7·6 million had been spent on non-controlled schools, which equates to 56 schemes. What I find regrettable about this is the focus on one school in that constituency. Having spoken to the principal, I know that he shares that view.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): At the start of the meeting, remarks were put clearly on the record that there is no interest from the Committee in any way in criticising or calling into question the reputation of that school. This is about legitimate interests that have been raised around the spending of public money, and I hope that the questions will be taken in that spirit.

To widen it out, I will ask one final question on the issue. As Minister, are you satisfied that there is sufficient scrutiny of the processes on the schemes of delegation that operate for the EA to administer that money for how such projects are identified, applied for and prioritised? My understanding is that they come through the EA board with great regularity and are marked for noting, so it seems to me to be entirely delegated to EA officials. Has anything that has arisen over the past number of days given you cause to query whether there is the appropriate scrutiny of what are substantial sums of public money?

I want to be clear that that is a question not about Lisneal but about your Department's budget.

Mr Givan: I can speak to the levels of funding that go through minor works schemes and say that it is significant. You rightly make the point, Chair, that those matters go to the Education Authority board. How the board carries out its scrutiny and governance of the decision-making process that officers use would be a legitimate issue for that board to raise. We, as a Department, obviously have a role via the accounting officer procedures, and Ronnie carries out that function.

I do not have a concern. I have looked at funding for works below the delegated £1 million threshold. In 2024-25, there was £30 million in controlled school minor works and £34 million in non-controlled school minor works. That includes special schools in a multiplicity of sectors, and it all operates in a minor works budget. I absolutely encourage members of the EA board, where those decisions are taken, to raise any concerns that they may have, which they can legitimately do.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am sure that those concerns will be raised.

Scarcity of resource is a theme that you have returned to in the Assembly many times — there is clearly a scarcity of resource in the Department's budget — and that creates a scenario in which there is, effectively, huge competition for any resource or capital investment in a school. Every member around the table knows, as you will know from your constituency, that the demand for investment will always outstrip the available resource. In that scenario, schools rightly want to know how schemes are prioritised and who makes the decision that a scheme to bring a pitch up to Irish League standards merits more investment than a roof that is letting water in. It is about who makes those decisions. Are you content that the processes for prioritisation are clear and transparent?

Mr Givan: I am, with respect to the processes that are followed. You are right, Chairman, to raise the constrained capital budget. Minor works are restricted to those deemed to be inescapable statutory requirements, with health and safety being one. For those who want to look at that scheme in particular, I will say that an assessment was carried out in 2019. Again, the decision will have been taken by the EA. It says that it falls within its current remit for provision, the other areas of that being fire protection, safeguarding and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

You are right to highlight the fact that there is a scarcity of resource. I share that frustration. It speaks to the wider point that, when one school gets and another does not, that school will raise questions and may have frustrations. My frustration is with the underfunding of the Department of Education — I mean our capital budget at a global level — and the bids that I submit to the Finance Minister not being granted. That is a global frustration. Rather than people wanting to take money off one school because their school has not got, we need much greater funding for all our schools.

That poses another question. We provide funding in limited areas. Recently, £4 million has gone to primary schools and nursery schools to allow them to purchase capital equipment of a value ranging from £4,000 to £6,000. They were all notified of that yesterday. You may say that that £4 million should have been spent on replacing windows, and people will make a valid point on that. Others will say, "Minister, last year, you announced the approval to take forward into contract major capital investments to the tune of tens of millions of pounds." School enhancement programmes are worth tens of millions of pounds. We are taking forward new — brand new — schools. The broader question, which I pose again, is this: which one of the new schools do members not want to go forward? Which project under the school enhancement programme do members not want to go forward?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will come in there. We are here to ask the Minister questions, not for the Minister to ask questions of the Committee. The point about scarcity of resources is one that we can, I think, all agree on.

Other members will want to pick this up, but I have a final question, which is on your statement to the Assembly on Monday about your intentions for the management of controlled schools. You set out your intention to establish a managing authority for controlled schools. There was a bit of discussion in the Chamber about the independent review of education. I want to look at that through the lens of the independent review, because I am concerned that there was a suggestion that there was maybe some sort of ideological objection to supporting controlled schools, which could not be further from the truth.

I want to get to the independent review's recommendations. I will quote from paragraph 8.22 of volume 1:

It then states that, in time, participation from the integrated and Irish-medium sectors will be included. That is the recommendation. There is an interim recommendation, which I do not dispute, about a directorate in the EA. That has been rehearsed clearly, and I concede that I have no major objection to a restructuring at EA level. However, why has that wider structural reform, which would deliver change for all sectors, including the controlled sector, been ruled out out of hand? In your contributions, you made a comment that, if Members want to have that single authority, you will have the conversation but you are going to do something else. I just wonder why the next action from the restructuring in the EA is a new layer of bureaucracy rather than the structural change that was recommended.

Mr Givan: It is not that it is a new layer of bureaucracy, because you helpfully highlighted — forgive me for not being able to find the exact quotes from the report, but I provided them in the Assembly — the fact that the independent review recognised that the current structures for the controlled sector are suboptimal. That is unique to one sector, which is the largest sector. It reflects the fact that controlled schools, controlled integrated schools, Irish-medium schools and special schools all fall into the controlled sector and are not, as some, I think, wrongly classify them, unique to one community.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have not attempted to do that, Minister.

Mr Givan: We need to provide that immediate support for an important section of the education system, but that in no way prohibits us moving forward to the wider objective. However, that change will take time. It would be wrong to allow clear failings that affect the controlled sector to go uncorrected. I want collaboration and to facilitate all the sectors working more closely, but we need to address the initial —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): To be clear, we have the change in the EA, and that would start to look at the issues that are maybe particular to the controlled sector. It is the next step that I am interested in. The next step looks to me like another layer of bureaucracy, so are you averse to structural reform of the education system?

Mr Givan: No, I am not averse to structural reform of the education system, but the independent review recognised the suboptimal arrangements for one particular sector. It also recognised that, if you could go to a single managing authority, it should be pursued. I would be interested to know from other managing authorities whether they want to relinquish the current arrangements in order for us to get to that single authority status, but that should not preclude us from addressing the issues affecting the controlled sector. The task force was established. My Department was on it, EA representatives were on it and they engaged with other sectoral bodies in forming it. The task force report has been published and is now available. Rather than taking my word for it, I encourage the Committee to bring those people in.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are. They are on the forward work plan, Minister, you will be pleased to know.

Mr Givan: I think that you will find from the research and the evidence that has been gathered from controlled schools that their clear opinion is that they have not been well served by the Education Authority for many years. It would be wrong for people to turn their eyes and ears from the legitimate criticisms coming from educational professionals. We should be careful not to view what we are trying to do entirely through a purely political prism.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have Hansard here, and, if you read my comments back, you will find that I was clear that I concede that issues need to be addressed that are specific to the controlled sector. My issue is on the next step beyond that, and I am concerned that there seems to be a lack of appetite for wider structural reform.

I will bring my remarks to a close and open the meeting up to members. We are looking at up to five minutes per enquiry, and there is a lot to get through, so, if we are to cover the issues that we want to cover, that will require members and witnesses to keep a close eye on time.

Please forgive me, but I will interrupt if members abuse the time allocated, because we want to cover as wide a range of issues as possible.

Mr Sheehan: I attended the Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta event in the Long Gallery yesterday, Minister. You did not manage to make it, nor did your permanent secretary, any of your directors or any of your deputy directors. I am sure that that was well noted by the sector. What Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta pointed out at the event was that 60% of its accommodation is substandard. I know of one Irish-medium school whose pupils have been in mobile classrooms for over 20 years.

The Chair asked you this question, but you were not clear in outlining the process for prioritising minor works. A roof is leaking in one school. Another school wants a football pitch. How is prioritisation done?

Mr Givan: Prioritisation is based on health and safety, fire protection, safeguarding and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. It is about keeping schools open and safe. There are questions that can be asked about schemes that are being funded within the delegated limit. It is legitimate for people to ask about that. The EA has a board, and people can ask it such questions.

I have visited Irish-medium schools extensively. Your colleagues invited me, and I was incredibly well received. I welcome that, and I very much support Irish-medium schools. They noted in my major capital projects announcement a new build for Scoil an Droichid, off the Ormeau Road.

Mr Sheehan: That has been in the pipeline for a long time.

Mr Givan: I approved it. It may have been in the pipeline. I can account for decisions that I take, and I —.

Mr Sheehan: It was approved because it should have been approved.

Mr Givan: There are other schools that could have a new build approved, Mr Sheehan. I approved a new build for that one.

Mr Sheehan: Fair enough, but you could not manage to walk up the stairs to the event yesterday.

Mr Givan: Judge me on the evidence of all my engagements with schools.

Mr Sheehan: Let us get back to Lisneal College. Here we have a school that has three grass pitches, one 3G pitch, multiple tennis courts and indoor facilities including a fitness suite. I know of at least two schools in my constituency that have no pitches at all. I know of other schools whose pupils are playing on gravel pitches; I was playing on gravel pitches 50 years ago. You are going to tell me and the EA is trying to tell us that the decision to fund the artificial pitch at Lisneal College and bring it up to Irish League standards was made on the basis of inescapable health and safety pressures. Moreover, we were told that the pitch was not being played on. It has been played on since 2019, when that report was done.

Your colleagues have visited the school on a number of occasions, including in 2022, when Gary Middleton and Michelle McIlveen visited it. Gary tweeted that they had visited the sports pitches to discuss "ambitious new plans". Tell me why that £710,000 is going to Lisneal when there are other schools with water coming through the roof and kids, if they are lucky, out playing on a gravel pitch? Other schools do not even have a pitch.

Mr Givan: I have visited those schools as well. Newry High School has only a —.

Mr Sheehan: No problem, but tell me why one school is getting a pitch that it does not need because it already has three grass pitches.

Mr Givan: Mr Sheehan —.

Mr Sheehan: Explain that. Explain it to the people who are watching the Committee meeting.

Mr Givan: The public rightly ask questions of schools that have and schools that have not. We have carried out a survey of schools that do not have adequate sports pitches.

Mr Sheehan: Tell me why that school, which already has state-of-the-art facilities, is getting more funding and other schools that have nothing are getting nothing. Explain that.

Mr Givan: You could ask questions about every school. Some have an abundance of facilities, while some have very limited facilities.

Mr Sheehan: We are talking about this case: Lisneal College.

Mr Givan: I note that you are asking about one school. It is not lost on me or on the school that you keep asking about one school, when the issue can be —.

Mr Sheehan: It is the issue that is in the media at the minute. It is the school to which a considerable amount of funding has gone when it does not need it. Explain that. I am not criticising the school in any way, but this seems to be a pet project for your party, and it is beginning to smack of cronyism.

Mr Givan: Well, it is not. I have visited almost 150 schools, some of which your colleagues invited me to and unashamedly pushed me to put money into. There was no mention of criteria —.

Mr Sheehan: I have no difficulty with any school asking for anything. It is not they who decide where the funding goes: that is down to you. The buck stops with you.

Mr Givan: To repeat: £1 million is the delegated limit for which the EA can take decisions. Unless I am mistaken, Mr Sheehan, you have two if not three reps on its board.

Mr Sheehan: Are you not concerned about the funding going to a school that already has state-of-the-art facilities?

Mr Givan: I am concerned about all schools: the schools that have and the schools that have not. That is why I am taking forward the physical education component of the curriculum-led capital investment programme. When I went to Newry High School — I note that it is the only controlled school in Newry — its representatives highlighted to me the neighbouring schools and said, "Look at all the facilities and new builds, and then look at what we have". They rightly challenged me to put more support into their school, just as —.

Mr Sheehan: Why would they not?

Mr Givan: Yes, why would they not? So why single out one school?

Mr Sheehan: If you had gone to one of the other schools in the area that you are talking about that already had state-of-the-art facilities and it had asked you for more, would you not have said, "Hold on a second. There's a school just across the way that has nothing, and I need to prioritise that school. You already have plenty here"? Explain to us why what is happening at Lisneal College is happening and why other schools have nothing, why 60% of accommodation in Irish-medium schools is substandard and why some children have been in mobile classrooms at an Irish-medium school for 20 years.

Mr Givan: In the Foyle constituency, £7·6 million has been spent on non-controlled schools across 56 schemes. One Catholic maintained school got a brand new 4G pitch. I do not hear the Member raising concerns about that expenditure, but I do hear and the school clearly hears the focus repeatedly being put on one particular school. You contact the school, not me. I encourage you to do so, because you are invoking the school to —.

Mr Sheehan: The school is not delivering the funding.

Mr Givan: You ask the school, because I have —.

Mr Sheehan: The school is not delivering the funding.

You are not going to answer the question, so I will move on to other issues.

Mr Givan: I have answered the question. You just do not like the answer.

Mr Sheehan: No, you have not answered the question. You have not said why that school got yet other schools do not get. We have discussed that issue.

This is characteristic of your tenure so far, Minister. There is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. You refuse to answer questions. You were asked about your decision on the proposed transformation of Bangor Academy to integrated status. You said that you were not permitting it on the basis of not having "reasonable numbers": there were not enough Catholics in the school or in the surrounding area. You still have not said what, you think, a reasonable number is. Do you want to tell us today?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask the Minister to be brief.

Mr Sheehan: I will wrap this up also. We have a similar issue with the RAISE programme. For some reason, you decided to develop complex and convoluted eligibility criteria for applying to it. You have never explained clearly why you did that. You have yet to tell us what weight you attach to each of the criteria. Similarly, for integrated education, you have not set out what weighting you attach to the other issues in the Integrated Education Act 2022, apart from the criterion of "reasonable numbers". All those issues create for us a view that you are not being transparent. When you to go into the Chamber, there is bluster and belligerence, and you insult Members who ask questions. We are looking for honesty, integrity and transparency. We are not getting that; instead, we get deflection, insults and bluster. We are not —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, I will ask the Minister to respond briefly. There was a lot of material in there.

Mr Sheehan: We are not getting transparency. That is what people out there are looking for. We are asking how funding is being delivered. That is a question that you must answer.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister, I ask for a brief response, because I want to make sure that all members get an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr Givan: I obviously reject the characterisation, as well as everything that Mr Sheehan said about my lack of honesty, integrity and transparency. It is a bit rich for Sinn Féin to talk about honesty, integrity and transparency. Read some of the reports on issues that have been debated in the Assembly about your party and then come back to me to talk about honesty, integrity and transparency.

Mr Sheehan: We are here to talk about education, Minister. If you cannot stick to that, do not bother. You should stick to what your job is. Our job is to hold you to account and to scrutinise what you and your officials do. That is what we are here for. We are not here to talk about anything else.

Mr Givan: Well —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Let us return to the issues of integrated education and the RAISE programme.

Mr Givan: I understand why you do not want me to talk about those things, Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: You can talk about them some other time. You get plenty of chances in the Assembly. You have insulted people over the past few weeks in the Assembly, including one of my colleagues. Maybe you will have something to say about that later.

Mr Givan: I am glad to see that you have calmed down since Monday. I have tried to come here in the spirit of cooperation.

Mr Sheehan: I was not there on Monday.

Mr Givan: OK, so you have saved it for today. That is good. The —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): A brief response, Minister. I will then have to bring this questioning to a close. Otherwise, we will not have enough time for other members' questions.

Mr Givan: I am in your hands, Mr Chairman.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): A brief response.

Mr Givan: If you want to move on —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No. The two questions should get a brief answer, after which we will move on.

Mr Givan: Of course. I can reassure the member on the question of accountability. I have answered over 2,000 questions from MLAs — I see that the member does not want me to give him the answers — so I have engaged extensively with all Members.

I touched on the RAISE programme methodology in my opening remarks. That is all publicly available. I provided it to all Ministers. I understand that the now Finance Minister has met my officials and engaged on the issue. If there are specific issues of concern to Mr Sheehan, I am —.

Mr Sheehan: What weight are you attaching to each criterion?

Mr Givan: The methodology is publicly available. I am happy to give specific answers for areas —.

Mr Sheehan: Do you not have them to hand?

Mr Givan: I said in my opening remarks that I have heard what people have said about flexibility when it comes to the localities. I have asked my officials whether we can provide some flexibility. People have said to me that they would like to see west Belfast included. That is one of the reasons that I asked whether we can provide flexibility. I have also met some of the member's party colleagues outside of Belfast who are delighted that their area is being included and rightly so. That ensures that we have a geographical spread and that, as far as we can, we provide support to as many people as we can.

I get it: we have a limited resource available to us, so not everybody can get that resource. I would love there to be more funding in the education system to allow us to do even more than we are doing.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will draw that to a close. Other members will get frustrated if they do not get the opportunity to come in. I gave additional time to the Deputy Chair. From here on, members will have five minutes, and that limit will be applied to everybody. We will not get through everything that we need to today if we take as long for each enquiry, so I ask that everybody work with me. That will require members and the Minister to cooperate.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, everyone, for being here today. It is definitely appreciated.

Minister, I will start by following up on some of the questions about Lisneal College. You came to the Chamber on Monday to make a statement and answer questions on it.

You responded to all the questions asked, but I am not sure that you answered them all.

I will take you back to a question that my colleague Nuala McAllister asked you. She said:

She went on to ask:

In your answer, you started off with a bit of an insult to my colleague, which I do not think was great. You then said:

You continued:

My question, which leads on from what Nuala asked, is this: why did the pitch need to be not just replaced but upgraded to the standard of a FIFA pitch?

Mr Givan: Again, I am repeating some of my responses, because Mr Sheehan asked me the same question, and I addressed why the decisions were taken.

Mrs Guy: My question is much more specific than Pat's. Why was the pitch to be not replaced but upgraded? It is an upgrade, not a replacement. The pitch will be to FIFA standard. Why was that approved? I assume that you have the answer, because you were asked that question in the Chamber earlier in the week and have since had time to reflect on it. You did not answer it at the time, but I hope that you can answer it for us now, because it is an important question and people would like to know what the rationale behind the decision was.

Mr Givan: As I have said, the Education Authority took the decision. It is not for me to speak for the authority that had responsibility for taking the decision. I have also said that there are legitimate questions that the EA board could ask about the expenditure for such schemes. When it came to the decision-making process, however, I did not take the decision. It is notable that the repeated focus is on one school.

Mrs Guy: I asked about the upgrading of a pitch: I have not mentioned the school once.

Mr Givan: Do you want to broaden your question to apply to other schools where pitches have been upgraded?

Mrs Guy: I just want —.

Mr Givan: Thank you. That answers my question.

Mrs Guy: It is about the pitch, not the school.

Mr Givan: That answers the question: it is about the particular one on which you have focused. I have answered that question already. When it came to the decision-making process, the EA took the decision on how it was funded. That is the response that I provided earlier in the session. I appreciate, however, that it is right that members should ask questions, Chairman.

In response to your first point, I will say that I typically respond as best I can on the basis of the nature of the question that I am asked. We were in a debating chamber, where debate can be challenging and robust. I note that you put comments about me on your Twitter feed that were not particularly appropriate. You can do that on Twitter — it is a matter for you what language you wish to use — but it does not really give you a lot of credibility when you then question me on how I —.

Mrs Guy: Minister, you are the person getting —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It would be helpful if we could stick to the issues that the Committee is concerned with, not individual members' Twitter feeds.

Michelle, do you have another question?

Mr Givan: It is related to the issue, Chairman.

Mrs Guy: Facts and accuracy were repeatedly mentioned by you on Monday. You said that you were bringing facts and accuracy to the discussion. From the Chair's comments, it is clear that there were key points that were neither factual nor accurate about the delegated limit for minor works and in the EA's statement about that pitch being closed to use in 2019 when it was not. The best way to get facts and accuracy is to be fully transparent about the paper trail. Are you comfortable about releasing the feasibility study that was done in 2019 and any other paperwork associated with the identification of need, the tender process and so on? Can we get that information into the public domain? That would reassure people.

Mr Givan: I do not think that we have restricted any requests for information that have come in. Again, I am sure that the EA will be more than happy to facilitate you with the paper trail on the evidence-based decision-making process. I have no difficulty with its doing that for the scheme and for every other scheme that it has decided to fund through its delegated limit for minor works.

Mrs Guy: I have one more question, if I have time.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Yes.

Mrs Guy: On the subject of integrated education, Bangor Academy has already been mentioned. It has been well rehearsed in the media that you did not follow your officials' advice when making your decision, and that is your prerogative. I asked this question in the Chamber but did not really get an answer to it, so I ask it again today: did you seek additional legal advice that helped inform your decision not to approve the transformation scheme for Bangor Academy?

Mr Givan: The development proposal was treated like every other development proposal that has come to me. The same assessment was carried out in the Department, and then it comes to me to take a decision. I therefore take decisions by following all the normal processes. I did not commission independent legal opinion before taking that decision, nor have I ever commissioned independent legal opinion on any development proposal.

Mrs Guy: Parents and staff in Bangor, given how disappointed they are about how the decision was reached, would expect me to ask whether you did not want to be the Minister who signed off on creating the biggest integrated school in Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: I am the Minister who has signed off five development proposals for schools to transform to integrated status. I am also the Minister who has approved development proposals to close schools, including controlled schools. Each individual —.

Mrs Guy: You are also the Minister who went against your officials' advice to close the Queen Elizabeth II Primary School and instead kept it open. There are examples on both sides of the argument.

Mr Givan: It is not unique for a Minister to take a decision that is contrary to the advice provided. I am not the first Minister of Education who has taken a different view on development proposals for schools, and not just from within the DUP. It happened when other parties held the position. I defend the right of democratically elected Members of the Assembly who are Ministers to take such decisions. I fully accept that, and it is why I sent a letter to every parent of pupils in the two schools in Bangor. I outlined in detail the rationale behind the decision that I had reached, and I welcomed and supported their desire to be inclusive and open to all.

It is my desire for every school in Northern Ireland to be inclusive and open to all, but I also have a legal framework to adhere to in taking decisions. I considered the legal framework. I do not believe that my officials gave appropriate attention to the statutory framework. I have that view, but it is a view that others may well disagree with, and they are entitled to hold that view.

Mr Baker: Minister, before I start, do you wish to reflect on the comments that you made to me on Monday in the Chamber?

Mr Givan: On Monday?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Mr Givan: I do not think that the Member, in posing the question —.

Mr Baker: OK. No. It is fine. No problem. I will get straight into it.

Minister, are we being misled? According to you, the EA released a statement on Friday night because of remarks that were being made on Twitter. I am not on Twitter, so I did not see any of them. The EA did not talk to the school, but it then released another statement saying that the pitch was in use when it had originally said that it was not in use. Are you not concerned about the health and safety of those who have been using the pitch for all that time? Do you know the specification of what the EA will deliver for the funding that is being provided?

Mr Givan: The Chairman and Mr Sheehan asked me about that. The EA put out information that was not correct. The EA then corrected the record.

Mr Baker: Are you concerned about that?

Mr Givan: Yes. Of course I am concerned.

Mr Baker: Do you know the full specification of the pitch?

Mr Givan: No. I have not gone through the information on the full specification of the pitch, because —.

Mr Baker: Do you not think that, as Minister of Education, you should be concerned about it? I used to sit on Belfast City Council, so I know that a pitch can be delivered for a fraction of that money. I will quote what your Department told the Audit Office in 2024:

Can you explain to me how bringing a pitch up to the Irish League standard falls under a statutory requirement? Why, as the Minister, are you not asking questions? It is not about one school getting something over another school but about a pitch getting a massive upgrade. For what purpose is it getting that upgrade?

Mr Givan: To repeat the responses that I have given —.

Mr Baker: You have not answered that part of the question.

Mr Givan: The record will show the answers that I provided to the same questions, and, for the sake of time, I will not repeat the same answers.

Mr Baker: OK. You are not going to answer my question —

Mr Givan: Because I have answered it.

Mr Baker: — about why it is to be brought up to the standard of an Irish League pitch.

Mr Sheehan: You are dodging the questions.

Mr Baker: Minister, you have said previously that you do not have enough money and that your budget is tight. Do you believe that it is in the public interest to invest in a spectator fence? Do you consider the upgrade to include a spectator fence to be an example of fair funding when other schools have broken windows and a leak in the roof? That is not me picking on the school. Tell me how that is fair.

Mr Givan: You are picking on the school.

Mr Baker: No, no. I am talking about the upgrade being to an Irish League standards. Why is there a spectator fence? Why?

Mr Givan: Again, there is a singular focus on one school.

Mr Baker: I am asking you a question. This is public money, Minister. Why is money from the Education budget being spent on a spectator fence?

Mr Givan: When are your party's members on the board going to ask that question?

Mr Baker: I am asking you, as the Minister.

Mr Sheehan: Stop deflecting.

Mr Baker: You are the Minister of Education. You are the leader of Education. I am asking you why a spectator fence is part of the upgrade.

Mr Givan: Rather than being angry —.

Mr Baker: I am not being angry. You will not answer my question.

Mr Givan: You are.

Mr Baker: You are not answering my question, Minister. All you are doing is feeding into that perception —.

Mr Givan: You are not giving me the opportunity to answer.

Mr Baker: Labelling me as sectarian is really just a cover for the fact that this is, as Pat said, cronyism.

Mr Martin: Let the Minister answer.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Sorry, Peter, you are not in the Chair. I will give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question. We will see if you are going to answer, Minister. I hand back to you.

Mr Givan: The premise on which Mr Baker raises all of this is incorrect. There is a singular focus on one school.

Mr Baker: What did I say that was incorrect?

Mr Givan: You are interrupting me again.

Mr Baker: What did I say that was incorrect?

Mr Brooks: Chair, you are in the Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David, to be clear, I do not need interventions from either side to direct me on how to chair the meeting. I was about to say that I have given the Minister the opportunity to answer the question, so we need to give him the space to do that.

Minister, please respond to Mr Baker's question.

Mr Givan: I appreciate being given the space to do that again. Hopefully, Mr Baker will hear the response. As I outlined at the start of the meeting in response to the Chair's question and Mr Sheehan's question, these decisions are taken by the Education Authority. There are questions that members have —.

Mr Baker: Are you not concerned?

Mr Givan: Sinn Féin have members on the board, and I have outlined my concern about the schools that have and those that have not.

Mr Baker: Minister, with all due respect, I am not asking that; I am asking whether you, as the leader of Education, are concerned.

Mr Givan: You interrupt again. That is the style.

Mr Baker: I did not ask the question that Pat asked or the question that Michelle asked. I asked you a very specific question, and you are refusing to answer it.

Mr Givan: I am not refusing.

Mr Baker: I am using up my time by asking you the question, but I will ask it one more time

Mr Givan: You do not like the answer. That is the problem.

Mr Baker: You have not answered it. Are you satisfied that, when we have schools with leaking roofs, it is the best use of public money to have a spectator fence in this case? You could deliver a new pitch or replace a pitch for a fraction of that money, but you are not doing that. The project is being completed to a higher standard. Are you not concerned about that, Minister?

Mr Givan: What concerns me is providing support to every school in Northern Ireland, because they all have maintenance needs and they all require investment. Your party controls the Department of Finance so your frustration —

Mr Baker: Minister —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to let the Minister finish because this is a new point.

Mr Givan: — I absolutely share. How do we get more investment to address the issues for every school? By giving my Department far greater financial resources. The bid that I put in was for over half a billion pounds, and I got half of it.

Now, we have scenarios where people are concerned that some schools get and some do not. The member is not remotely concerned that another school in that constituency, from a different background, has had funding provided to it for a sports pitch. That does not suit the member's narrative. [Interruption.]

Mr Baker: Chair —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I want to give Danny the opportunity to respond.

Mr Baker: I have never said anything about taking from one school to give to another.

Mr Givan: You are not concerned about the other schools

Mr Baker: I am concerned about the upgrade being to intermediate football level in this case. You have not answered that point. You are talking about the finances —.

Mr Givan: You are not concerned about other non-controlled schools

Mr Sheehan: Let him ask the question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Danny and Minister, could I —?

Mr Baker: You spent a quarter of a million pounds on phone pouches. You put your funding out there.

Mr Givan: You are only interested in one school. That says it all.

Mr Baker: No I am not. You will not answer a simple question, Minister. I think that there will be more questions from those who are —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Excuse me, can I just remind everybody who is in the Chair? I request that a line be drawn under this line of questioning because we are getting nowhere. We are just going backwards and forwards.

Mrs Mason: Minister, I want to go back to a point that you mentioned about Newry. Newry is not in my constituency, but it is right on the border of it. You mentioned that Newry High School is the only school that does not have a pitch and that all the other schools around it do. St Mary's High School has about 600 pupils and is in the same area: it has no pitch.

Mr Givan: That school needs investment as well, just as Newry High School does.

Mrs Mason: At the end of last week, with all the media coverage and everything that was going on, I was contacted by four principals. The first principal who contacted me has to move the chairs in their P1 and P2 classes into the middle of the room because, when it rains, the water comes through the window and they get soaked. The second principal's school has a heating system that only works from time to time. It also had a hole in a fire door that a child could put their arm through. How did the EA fix that? It put two fire signs on either side of the hole. The third principal is using a mobile classroom that has holes in its floor and ceiling. The school is using that classroom as an assembly hall, a canteen and their PE space. The fourth principal has to walk their children from the school in the rain down the road to use a community facility that they have to pay for so that the children can get PE. Minister, with all due respect, I would not call those minor works; they are urgent health and safety issues that the children in those schools have to face. Those four principals came to me and asked me legitimately to raise those issues with you today to see what you would say to them. They have asked me, "Why are our children not important?". What do you say to them?

Mr Givan: You are doing absolutely the right thing by raising concerns about the lack of investment in those schools. Nearly every member on the Committee does that, and they invite me to see those schools. You are doing the right thing by raising those concerns. I raise those concerns on their behalf as a Minister in the Executive, hence the very ambitious bid that I submitted for capital resources in my Department to allow me to provide much greater support. The decision-making process for minor schemes, however, within the delegated limit of £1 million, does not rest with my Department; it rests with the Education Authority.

Mrs Mason: Again, Minister, with all due respect, those principals do not see that. They are looking at the children in their schools being able to put their hands through a hole in a door. They see you as their Education Minister and feel that the buck stops with you. They see that you got a budget of, I think, nearly £3 billion. They see money for mobile phone pouches coming out of that. They see lots of schools getting enhanced facilities while they have basic requirements that need to be addressed. Again, those are not minor works; they are urgent issues. Honestly, I have had principals in tears. Three of the principals who contacted me said that they were so angry that they could not even pick up the phone to the EA. Is that right?

Mr Givan: If there are urgent health and safety concerns that present a risk of injury, such as those that you highlight, they absolutely need to be fixed.

Mrs Mason: They are not being fixed.

Mr Givan: Well, they need to be. I am more than happy to engage with the EA, as I do for every MLA who asks me to. It will ultimately take a decision.

I have just been criticised, wrongly, for bringing influence to bear on one scheme. However, when schools ask me to visit, I will seek to get an update from the EA for them as to how issues are being addressed and how we can fix them. I have been in those schools and have been shown windows that are not safe and ledges that need to be fixed where blockwork has fallen out. Of course I am concerned about those issues, and I expect those schools to be supported. Those concerns are legitimate, it is right that they are raised and I seek to provide what help I can by way of resources to the Education Authority. It is still, however, the Education Authority that will decide how that funding is spent.

Mrs Mason: They will be watching, as will many principals across the North. To them, it is all words: it will mean nothing to them.

Mr Givan: To assure you, I was in St Patrick's High School in Keady this morning before I came to the Committee. I was there with the principal and a dozen other primary school principals. I engaged in a lengthy conversation about how we support schools, teachers and support staff. They welcomed a lot of the initiatives that I am taking. I appreciate that, for one hour, we have focused on one school issue —.

Mrs Mason: With all due respect, Minister, I am not focusing on one school; I am focusing on the principals who contacted me.

Mr Givan: It is a connected issue. People are at pains, Mr Chairman: they do not want to say that it is about one school. All of it is connected to the characterisation of one school.

Mrs Mason: I have not said that. I was talking about four principals who contacted me directly —

Mr Givan: And they deserve to be supported.

Mrs Mason: — and I am raising their concerns with you.

Mr Givan: I have said that they deserve to be supported.

Ms Hunter: Minister, thank you for being here. You will be happy to know that I will bring the questions back to the Lisneal issue. You said that the decision was made by the EA and that you cannot speak for the EA. The decision was made by the Education Authority on the basis of a health and safety concern: it initially believed that the pitch had not been used since 2019. However, we know that the pitch has been used since then, including by a football club in the area. Knowing that the initial information that the EA received was not entirely accurate, do you, as a Minister, think that the decision about the funding should be upheld?

Mr Givan: Lisneal has absolutely every right to ask for investment in the school. Every school has the right to ask for investment and to engage its public representatives to get resources. A process is then followed, as it was in this case. The Education Authority took the decision to fund the scheme. It will have followed its criteria and processes in doing so. That was a decision for the Education Authority.

Ms Hunter: Minister, we now know that the information on which it initially made the decision is not entirely accurate. Should it be relooked?

Mr Givan: No. I will not get involved in singling out one school, as Members here have done.

Ms Hunter: This is not about the school. This is about —

Mr Givan: I know that you are at pains —.

Ms Hunter: — the transparency of the action and the investment.

Mr Givan: Speak to the school's principal and ask —.

Ms Hunter: I will happily speak to the principal. I would welcome that engagement.

Mr Givan: Please do. Your Foyle colleagues still have not spoken to the principal, despite quoting the school liberally. People at the school absolutely feel that it is purely about them. A school in Foyle is being victimised and targeted in, I think, a very political manner. That is not lost on the school.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I have a set amount of time, so I will dive a little deeper. We have talked about the importance of facts and accuracy. Will you commit today to publishing the report on the health and safety risk assessment that was carried out in this case?

Mr Givan: There will be no barrier from me to any documentation —.

Ms Hunter: That is a yes.

Mr Givan: There will be no barrier from me to any documentation being published. The Education Authority is the body that is managing the scheme.

Ms Hunter: So you support transparency.

Mr Givan: I have no difficulty with that. I have no difficulty with any transparency; in fact, I support transparency on the funding of minor schemes across Northern Ireland. When I look at the information that is presented to me, I see that, in the Foyle constituency, funding to the tune of £7·6 million has been provided for non-controlled schools. It is notable that no Member so far has raised any concerns about that expenditure.

Ms Hunter: OK. I will move on. Minister, I attended a school in my constituency that was visibly crumbling around me. It has a room that was meant to become a sensory room to assist children with special educational needs. That room is not fit for purpose. Do you understand why schools — principals and teachers — are confused and frustrated, as Committee members have said, by seeing such investment in a pitch that is being upgraded? Do you understand their concerns and frustration at that decision?

Mr Givan: In the exact same way, frustration is expressed to me by principals who have seen investment going to lots of schools. Some schools get a new build, but others cannot get one. We have a pipeline of new builds. Those principals express that concern to me. It is wholly inappropriate and wrong, however, to somehow pin that on Lisneal.

Ms Hunter: Nobody is putting that on Lisneal.

Mr Sheehan: The only one doing that is you.

Mr Givan: Sorry, where have you been?

Ms Hunter: If I may, as a member of the Opposition, Minister — [Interruption.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Members, I ask you to give Cara her time.

Ms Hunter: I have one final question after this. None of us —

Mr Givan: You are living in a parallel universe.

Ms Hunter: — are pinning this on Lisneal.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister, the member is speaking. Cara, please return to your point.

Ms Hunter: None of us are pinning this on Lisneal. I welcome every opportunity to engage with that school and that principal. We merely ask for clarity and transparency on the public funding, through the Education Authority, that will go to that pitch.

Lastly, Minister, you passionately referred to my colleague Michelle's social media comments about you, so I want to ask you about what many people are saying online. On Twitter or X — whatever you want to call it — many people are calling for your resignation. Many are frustrated that you spoke to the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) about Irish language education in east Belfast; you turned down a request for integrated status from schools that had held a democratic vote in which parents showed their desire for integrated education; and you have appointed former colleagues to head positions in education. Do you think that you should resign, Minister? Why are people asking that question?

Mr Givan: In terms of the online commentary — I know that the member has particular concern about online commentary and abuse — the amount of abuse that has been directed towards me is unparalleled in my time as a public representative, not that anyone round the table will be concerned about that. I have received countless emails from one individual in particular that contain appalling comments. I am sure that the member is concerned about what has been said on Twitter and online. Rather than indulging the spurious and factually incorrect information on Twitter, the member should condemn both the abuse —.

Ms Hunter: What are you referring to?

Mr Givan: The member should condemn both the abuse that I have received and the people who have put out factually incorrect information. I am sure that the member, as a campaigner who is trying to deal with online abuse of public representatives, would support that.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I have been firm that we, as public representatives, should never have to endure abuse online or offline. Today, it has been stated factually that you met the LCC; did not uphold the democratic parental vote to allow schools to integrate; and appointed colleagues and former colleagues to high positions in the Education Authority. That does not warrant any abuse of you online, nor should it enable an environment where abuse is valid — let me make that clear — but the matter of today is transparency. It is about ensuring that you, your Department and the Education Authority give us, as a Committee, the clarity that is necessary to ensure that things are done fairly. I will not apologise for asking for that.

Mrs Guy: Chair, can I just come in on that?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Briefly. I have other members waiting.

Mrs Guy: Minister, you referenced my Twitter account and, I think, equated what I posted with abuse. I hope that you are not implying that what I put on social media could in any way be characterised as abuse. I listed a number of things that are factually accurate and in the public domain: the meeting with the LCC, which was against officials' advice; phone pouches, which many people are concerned about and the expenditure on which raised huge controversy in the media; and the fact that you had gone against advice on integrated status. Then, I questioned where the SEN delivery plan was. We have that today, which is welcome. Do not characterise legitimate challenge and scrutiny of a Minister as abuse. That is not fine. I condemn any abuse online. Please, do not characterise what I put online as being in any way abusive.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You can make a brief response. Then, I will bring in other members.

Mr Givan: The member from Lagan Valley interjected unnecessarily.

Mrs Guy: I felt that I had to defend myself. The implication was clear.

Mr Givan: The interjection was unnecessary.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The member has had her opportunity to make her point. Do you want to respond, Minister, or should we bring in another member?

Mr Givan: The monologue from Ms Hunter that I was subjected to speaks volumes. All of it can be dissected in detail and given justifiable and rational explanations. However, the member is not interested in rational justification that is based on fact; she is interested in the politicisation of the issues to score cheap points.

Ms Hunter: Absolutely not.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will draw a line there. David, you are next.

Mr Brooks: Thank you for your answers so far, Minister. This has been 'Through the Looking-Glass' stuff. People want to talk about the pitch but pretend that they have not heard of Lisneal, just as they believe that Ministers cannot engage with loyalists but are happy to have people with republican backgrounds sitting on Committees. I thank you for your engagement with loyalists. I know that it is appreciated by many people in my community.

Mr Sheehan: Elected republicans.

Mr Brooks: Sorry?

Mr Sheehan: They are elected republicans.

Mr Brooks: Perhaps, but having a mandate does not mean that they are the only people who can engage. Loyalists are entitled to speak to people in government as well.

Mr Sheehan: Those organisations are involved in drug dealing and extortion currently, not just historically.

Mr Brooks: Who are you talking about? Do you want to accuse anyone specifically?

Mr Sheehan: The organisations associated with the LCC.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are giving everybody their time and space to speak, so I pass back to David.

Mr Brooks: Minister, some of the questioning has been from a slightly different angle. Will you rehearse exactly how the decision on Bangor Academy was taken, as has been noted, against the advice of officials? What key points formed the basis for that decision?

Mr Givan: Having considered the development proposal in detail, I looked at the legislative framework that exists on the decision-making process for transformation. It is worth making sure that we know exactly what it says. Article 92(6) of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 states:

I looked at that legislative text. In the body of the report, my officials also concluded that there was not a reasonable number and there was not likely to be a reasonable number. It is for them to explain how, in the final analysis, they came to a different recommendation, given the evidence in the report. I drew on the evidence when coming to my decision.

The report also cites section 1 of the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which states:

The legislation defines clearly that there is a requirement for there to be a "reasonable number". That leads to the question of what a "reasonable number" is. I looked at the demographic breakdown of the area and the school's current enrolment. In Bangor Academy, you have just over 1,850 pupils of whom just over 50 come from a Catholic community background. I think that most people would say that that does not equate to a "reasonable number" to constitute a change to integrated status.

You also have to look at the situation historically. People are asking for a "reasonable number". The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education's (NICIE) website talks about a ratio of 40:40:20 in an integrated school. There has been guidance in the past on that issue, and there was an old test applied by the Department that meant that you needed to have 10% enrolment from the minority community in year 1, rising to 30% after a number of years. Applying even NICIE's ratio of 40:40:20, it fails. Applying an old test in the Department's policy, it fails. I have looked at the statutory tests, and I believe that it does not meet those. Therefore, I came to the view that I did.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much. You said that that was a matter for the officials. Heather, from the documentation that is available on the website, I note that you are one of those who cleared the proposal, alongside an Eamonn Broderick. How did you come to the decision to recommend that the proposal be approved, on the basis of the Catholic population at the school being between 2·5% and 3%? What would have been an unreasonable number? At what point would that number have become unreasonable?

Ms Heather Cousins (Department of Education): Thank you for the question. It is a difficult one for officials, because the Integrated Education Act is so new and does not define "reasonable numbers". Officials provided their advice. That is published on the departmental website, but it is only officials' advice. It is then for a Minister to make the decision.

Mr Brooks: It is advice with a recommendation, and that recommendation went forward even with a Catholic population of 2·5% to 3% in the school. I hope that you would concede that 3% of a school's population being from one community and the rest being from another and others is not what the general populace of Northern Ireland would envisage when they hear the word "integrated" and so would not necessarily deem it reasonable. Why did officials deem that to be reasonable? Why did you approve the proposal on the basis of 3%?

Ms Cousins: You can see that officials provided a full range of advice, and then —.

Mr Brooks: Will you comment specifically on the number of 3%? At what point would that have become unreasonable?

Ms Cousins: We did not look at numbers in total. We did say this is a very finely —.

Mr Brooks: Why did you not look at the numbers if that was a key part of the criteria?

Ms Cousins: We have duties to promote and facilitate. That is what we —.

Mr Brooks: Is there any number that would have been low enough for you not to have considered first the duty to promote integrated education? Is there any number that you would have thought unreasonable?

Ms Cousins: Zero.

Mr Brooks: Zero. That is eye-opening and will raise a few eyebrows among those watching.

Ms Cousins: We take things in the round —

Mr Brooks: So there are —.

Ms Cousins: — rather than looking just at legislation.

Mr Brooks: What is the point of having criteria if officials are not going to consider them?

Ms Cousins: Officials considered all the evidence and all the criteria.

Mr Brooks: You just told me that zero is the number that would be considered unreasonable —

Ms Cousins: I just gave you an opinion.

Mr Brooks: — so you are saying that there is no point at which you would have deemed that unreasonable.

Ms Cousins: I gave you an opinion because you pressed me for an opinion.

Mr Brooks: I asked about the detail, but —

Ms Cousins: Officials are —.

Mr Brooks: — that was a remarkable answer.

Ms Cousins: Officials look in detail at everything in the round, looking at it from all perspectives and points of view. One of the issues that we are grappling with is demand. Parental votes are an indication of demand. We have duties to facilitate and promote, and that is basically where officials pitched their advice. They said that it was finely balanced —.

Mr Brooks: Are you telling me that a school could be 100% Protestant or 100% Catholic, and you would not think it in any way unreasonable for the "integrated education" label to be applied to it? If so, what exactly does the "integrated" label mean?

Ms Cousins: It is not really for me to say what the "integrated" label means. There are many successful integrated schools, and some that have not been so successful due to their location and so on. An important part of that one was looking at the plans to move from the 3% and make it more integrated: that is what the "finely balanced" comment was based on. That needs to be looked in terms of where we go from here. We have an old document on transformation that we are revising to look at what that means and at what steps a school has to go through in order to demonstrate that there will be integrated education there. We appreciate that this is difficult, that it is not clear-cut and that we have to do more to provide clarity and help schools through the process.

Mr Brooks: Some people might think that 3% is more clear-cut than others do. I am not sure that you have satisfied me or helped me with the definition of an integrated school. In fairness to you, you are not alone in that; I am having trouble getting an answer on what exactly "integrated" means, but —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You have made your point, David. The point around the transformation journey is what needs to be focused on. I do know that anybody has suggested that, when a case for change is made, the school should be the finished article. In my view, they should be given space to go through that process.

Mr Martin: Perhaps refreshingly, Minister, given that we are running out of time, I will ask you about educational underachievement and special educational needs. We had an informal briefing from Colin Knox yesterday. I will read out some figures from that. You do not have access to them, but they are fairly straightforward. They look at examination performance: pupils getting five GCSEs at grades A to C, which is a standard metric. Controlled non-grammar schools scored 53·6% across that, and Catholic maintained non-grammar schools scored 62·2%. I will do the basic maths for you. Effectively, the Catholic maintained non-grammar schools are outperforming the controlled non-grammar schools by 8·6%; they seem to be doing better than their counterparts. I suspect that you will agree that controlled non-grammar schools need more support. I looked up the line from the independent review document that we were discussing earlier:

Minister, do you agree that support is needed when dealing with educational underachievement specifically within the controlled non-grammar sector? If so, what sort of support is required?

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Martin for that question. After an hour and a half, I am delighted that we are getting into the meat of what education is about and what goes on in schools, classrooms and teaching. The member rightly draws out the differential. That is to the credit of the Catholic maintained sector, which does excellent work, particularly in areas of socio-economic disadvantage. I see it at first hand. Really good work is taking place, and we can get a lot of good learning from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and those Catholic maintained schools that produce good qualifications.

Controlled schools are not performing to the same level. There are many good ones. I declare an interest: I was a pupil at a controlled non-grammar school. What can we do to help, beyond RAISE? We have not got into RAISE, but it will give us an opportunity to take a whole-community approach to help with educational underachievement. This is where we get into our curriculum. How relevant is it? That is why a review of the Northern Ireland curriculum is taking place. Flowing from that review, what is the assessment process? We need more data around assessment. How does that inform the resources that we utilise to enhance teacher professional learning? So often, I hear from school professionals that they cannot even get out or get a substitute teacher to release them for professional learning.

Mr Martin: Because there is no space.

Mr Givan: If we are to drive up educational underachievement and maximise people's attainment levels, we have to drive it at the curriculum. What is being taught in classrooms? How is it being taught? What is the best international practice? How can we learn from it? Nobody should have a settled view of the right and the wrong of this; it should be evidence-based. I am focused on driving forward that wider educational piece around the curriculum, assessment and teacher professional learning. That will drive up standards in all of our schools.

Linsey is focusing on some of that to do with RAISE. I invite Linsey to speak on that. We have had educational underachievement and the Fair Start programme, and we are building on that through RAISE. Linsey, do you want to add anything to that?

Mrs Linsey Farrell (Department of Education): Certainly, Minister. We have already chatted about RAISE, but the Minister's key policy priorities that he articulated will also underpin the implementation through RAISE. While it is very much community-informed, the Minister is really keen that we use the opportunity to get closer to those localities and to some of those schools that you are talking about to deal with the practicalities of what they require.

Another key action will be our ongoing work to revise and refresh our existing school improvement policy, which is Every School a Good School. We want to be in a position to consult on a revised policy later this year. That will not be around just the policy but a new model for targeted specific support to schools. To be clear, that will be support for good schools to go from good to excellent and for schools that are perhaps facing challenges around the issues the Minister talked about, such as curriculum delivery, teaching and learning. It is about making sure that there is very targeted, specific and high-quality intervention in response.

Mr Martin: That is very useful, Minister. This is no reflection on controlled non-grammar schools, because I visit a lot of them, and their teaching and leadership is superb. Clearly, I am very keen that controlled schools get equality — I would call it equality — with the other sectors. The piece of work that you are doing around the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC) and managing authorities is pivotal, and I encourage you in that.

I have limited time, but I want to ask you about special education needs, because that issue is really important. We are now an hour and thirty minutes into the session, and we have not even covered that topic yet. I turn to page 17 of your document, 'Special Educational Needs Reform Agenda'. I will let you flick to that. It is under the section titled "How much will Delivery cost?" It is a brand new document which, I think, came out this month and looks at the reform of SEN. On page 17, it says:

That is quite chunky. It is half a billion pounds, or about £100 million per year. I have a couple of questions about that. I am assuming that that £570 million is all resource, but I do not know. You might want to clarify that. Is it all resource, or is there a resource/capital split on that £570 million? It is very detailed and right in the middle of the document, so if you do not know the answer, you can provide one —.

Mr Givan: No, no. Obviously, the document refers to the £570 million. The independent review of education had a slightly higher figure than ours when we completed our end-to-end review analysis as to what it would be. It is not an insignificant amount of funding that will be required to take forward the end-to-end review into the delivery phase. You are right: it is significant. Of course I will be seeking that resource to be made available to me. I hope to get support around the Executive for it, because I certainly will seek it. That is the quantum of funding.

I assure the Member that we have also —. We have not been able to announce this publicly just yet, but it is public knowledge that I put a bid forward through the transformation programme board. That funding was provided to the Executive. Departments all had to bid for that, and we have been successful in securing funding for that, but we are still waiting for the final sign-off. That is going to kick-start this, but we need to get the final sign-off for it. We have got through the process and we have been deemed a scheme that should be funded, but the Executive and the Finance Minister are still waiting to be able to provide the final sign-off. That will allow me to kick-start part of our delivery plans associated with that. However, we will need to do a lot more for special educational needs.

Mr Martin: That is very helpful, Minister. On that —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to bring Colin in, so a final very brief question.

Mr Martin: No, no. I am just keeping an eye on my seven minutes, which is what everyone else got.

To be clear on that £570 million, will that be additional money that you will be bidding for, year to year, effectively, so there will be tranches of that coming in? How confident are you of getting that, and what are the implications if it is not put into your Department's budget for that project?

Mr Givan: We will do, as we have been doing, the best to reform all that we do in education with what funding and resource we provide. However, if we are serious about making a really significant change and getting that earlier intervention — and we have not had a chance to go into the detail of everything that we want to do on that — it will require resource. It is not there in my current departmental budget. With 15 minutes to go, I have not yet had a chance to talk about the budgetary pressures in my Department, but we are entering in, come 1 April, with a £260 million overcommitment. That is a significant amount of money, which we will require support to address. That is in addition to that overcommitment, so I put it up there in headlights: education is underfunded. All of the evidence demonstrates that it is underfunded, and if we are serious about changing our education system, it is going to require that significant resource to be provided. That is why we have spent an hour-and-a-half on £700,000, when I am facing hundreds of millions of pounds of challenge, yet we have not yet had a chance to get into that in this session.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Colin, I will bring you in, and then there will be time for some additional questions on other issues after that.

Mr Crawford: Thanks, Minister, and your team, for coming this afternoon. I have two questions, initially, around SEN. The significant spend on the specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) units here recently is notable across the board. Can I ask for your assessment on those units as an appropriate alternative to special schools?

Mr Givan: That is a really good question, Colin. Thank you for having me up in North Antrim recently, where I was able to see some work in special schools. I appreciate that opportunity.

We have spent £51 million on special education needs provision in terms of capital resource. A significant amount of that has been around SPiMS. We have also had the inspectorate go in to carry out assessments in some of these settings, and the initial feedback has been positive. There have been some issues of concern raised, but overall, the response and the feedback that we have had have been positive.

I was in Carr Primary School very recently. When I visited last year, they did not have a SPiMS. They wanted a SPiMS. They now have a SPiMS. It is full. The principal and parents are delighted, and the impact that it is having is hugely positive. Significant investment has gone in. We had to create over 1,000 places to accommodate the needs of children who had not received any placement. Credit where credit is due to the Department and the EA. We were able to respond to that effectively, and are continuing because we know that more pressure will be coming on this in September, and we have our eye on how we are going to meet those needs.

Mr Crawford: I agree that some feedback on the SPiMS units is positive and some is not, unfortunately. Some primary schools have maybe one, two or three SPiMS units. How will the experience of special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs), teachers and classroom assistants be taken on board by your Department to include new approaches and the practices that you said will be emerging over the next decade or so?

Mr Givan: They are at the heart of what we are trying to do because, as the practitioners, they are on the front line. They have been engaged with the advice that we receive as part of the end-to-end review. As we now give operational effect to the plan that we now need to implement, they will very much be a part of making sure that what we do is working. We know the frustrations — they are well documented — so they will be involved with that.

Linsey, do you want to pick up on how we are including the professionals in the process?

Mrs Farrell: Yes, certainly. Looking overall at where children with special educational needs are being educated, 84% are in mainstream, 5·6% are in specialist provisions in mainstream, and 10% are in special schools, so there is a piece of work there around the model of education going forward. That underpins the Minister's SEN reform agenda and the delivery plan. Within that, you will see it structured around:

In terms of your question, it is about how we are using the expertise and resource in the system. There is a big theme throughout the delivery plan about building a confident, skilled and capable workforce. We heard strongly throughout the end-to-end review process that both teaching and non-teaching staff often feel disempowered and ill-equipped to meet the needs that they are seeing in their classrooms. Equally, there is a huge issue with special schools in that they require ongoing support to build their expertise, but also want to be seen as a resource to be used.

When you have had a chance to digest the reform agenda and delivery plan, you will see that there is a key element in there around using the skills and expertise as centres of excellence; as hubs in the hub-and-spoke model that will work in communities, drawing in professionals and practitioners from specialist provisions and special schools, building and enhancing their capacity and capability. The EA has done a lot of work on the equality assurance framework around this. It now has that framework in place for specialist provision in mainstream and the conditions that must be met in high-quality specialist provision.

As the Minister said, the Education and Training Inspectorate conducted an initial assessment of SPiMS provision, and we are expecting part two of that evaluation to be available later this year. We are conscious that quality assurance and the confidence of staff will be critical to making this model work.

Mr Crawford: Finally from me, Minister, the reform agenda states that many parents believe that the current system is broken. What steps are being taken to address that perception?

Mr Givan: That is an area that we have been focusing on. I have repeatedly told the Education Authority that communication has to improve. It has been improving, and there is improvement as measures are put in place. The chief executive of the EA has been engaged in that. As part of the organisation's restructuring, there will be a focus at director level on the special educational needs process. That will look at how the EA responds to this. Operationally, it has to carry out the assessments and the referral processes when it comes to a statement being provided and giving operational effect to that.

What I said in my opening comments, which I stand over, is that it is a failure of the education system that parents feel that they have to resort to getting a legal document for services that they should be entitled to. That should not be necessary. People in desperation feel that they need to get a legal document. Then the frustration is that, having got that, you are still not able to get the services. We need to move to a position where we provide the support without parents having to go through that process. That is the shift of the entire SEN framework that we are trying to implement. It is comprehensive, and I encourage the Committee to read it, as I know you will. The detailed implementation plan is there. That will be transformative, but we need to be able to resource and support it. We will do what we can with the resources that are available to us to try to make that change.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am conscious of time. The session has gone in the direction that it has gone in, in terms of what members wanted to focus on. By my clock, we have about 20 minutes left, so I am content to bring everybody in for another short question on SEN or educational underachievement.

I will turn to SEN very quickly with something that you have alluded to in your comments, Minister. By virtue of the long, long history that we are looking at, parental confidence is not high. It is important to emphasise that. It is not an issue that you have just stumbled on. This has been 10 or 15 years — maybe that is a conservative estimate — of failure to deliver for children and parents. We need to be honest about that. The desire for this to have the right impact is high, and the level of support that the Committee wants to give you to do that is high. We want this to succeed. That is really important to note. Nobody here wants to score political points around children with special educational needs. We want this to succeed. However, we also have stakeholders who are very keen to know what is actually going to be delivered here.

I have two questions, and I am happy for you to answer them quickly so that everybody else has time to come in. On my first scan of the delivery plan — it came to us late, only yesterday — I counted over 30 specific actions that use words such as "trial", "scope", "test" and "pilot". I am not sure that parents who are watching will have a huge amount of confidence that more pilots are going to deliver the change that they need. They need it now. First, can you speak to that? Are we not at a point at which we know what we need to do, rather than piloting different interventions?

Second is something that the Committee has returned to multiple times. We will have our joint meeting with Health, which we are very much looking forward to, but, at page 9 of the delivery plan, something really concerning leapt out at me:

I would have hoped that we would be way beyond aspiration to what "should" happen. I know that you are not the Health Minister. There is a strong argument that we should have a joint meeting with both Ministers, because the Health Minister has questions to answer in that regard, but you are the Education Minister. Can you offer the Committee any assurance that we are going to move beyond what "should" be happening? If, as an Executive, we cannot get Education and Health to just do what needs to be done to put the right people in post to support the education system, I wonder whether we should pack up and go home.

Mr Givan: Chair, outside Committee meetings, I have met you to discuss frustrations in our special schools and with the health service, and I have sought to use my influence on health trusts as best I can. We met the Health Minister —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The work on nursing provision was welcome. It is good to see collaboration there, but this goes way beyond that.

Mr Givan: It absolutely does. We reference it, as you highlighted, on page 9, which talks about speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and all the wrap-around of the allied health professionals (AHPs) that need to be put in place. The challenge — we have it in this document. We are saying that, if the resource is available, we will fund the training of AHPs. We are prepared to provide funding, if we can, to train more people who can be part of the process. You are right that engagement with Health will be hugely important.

I understand the frustrations. I still do not know why there has been an exponential increase in the number of young people presenting with additional needs, but we have better visibility on that. We need to move away from being reactive into forward planning.

That is why operational plan 2 speaks to the need for solutions based on area plans.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): May I come in? It is just that we are so short of time. I do not hold you responsible for that, Minister.

We will pick up the question around Health. My first question was this: are we not at a point of moving beyond pilot schemes? I do not speak to any parents who say that they would love another pilot scheme. They want to know that their child will get the services that they need.

Mr Givan: That is where we moved from the end-to-end review and towards this timetable for a timeline of delivery and that plan. In taking forward some of what we need to do, as I said in response to Colin and Mr Martin, resources are a challenge in this.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No doubt.

Mr Givan: If we are to be able to take this forward, it will take time, but it will also take resource. That resource does not currently sit within my Department. We need to get the resource to allow us to take it forward. With some of the measures that we will take, we know, of course, that there are things that work and that we can implement. Part of the bid that we will take forward when we get final approval around transformation will be transforming the support model for children with statements. It will develop speech and language communication intervention programmes to target 10,000 children over the next three years. We will develop inclusive play environments. We will have testing of the enhanced nurture programme over the next three years. We will develop a model of special schools at resource centres. We will design inclusive capacity-building programmes, including teacher and classroom assistant professional learning. There are things that we can roll out, but can I deliver everything that I published yesterday? No, I cannot, because there is not the resource to do it. If that changes, I will be able to make the transformative impact that all of us, I think, around this Committee room want.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will draw it to a close there. I know that others want to come in. I think that I can speak for the Committee when I say that you have an open invitation to come back to do as many sessions as possible to work through the delivery plan with the Committee, because we want to scrutinise it in detail. I do not think that I need to seek Committee agreement for that. We are pretty clear that we are on the same page in that regard.

I will give everyone else the opportunity to come in. I will start with the Deputy Chair. It will be quick-fire questions and answers and then move on.

Mr Sheehan: Paul, when I asked you earlier about the RAISE programme and the weight attached to each of the criteria, you referred me to the methodology. I have looked at it. I see the methodology, the ranking and the shortlisting, but there is no information available on what weight is applied to each indicator. Can you refer me to where I can get that?

Mr Givan: Linsey, do you want to pick up on that?

Mrs Farrell: Yes. It is as set out and as we have been through multiple times previously. Areas were identified on the basis of all of those indicators. The Minister identified that he wanted to run a regional programme, Northern Ireland-wide. The range of indicators was informed by a stakeholder reference group, many members of which were community representatives. It had been established as a result of the 'A Fair Start' panel and action plan.

Mr Sheehan: On that range of indicators, there is no weight attached to any of them.

Mrs Farrell: The range of indicators was used to identify areas, and then, because it is an educational underachievement programme, the only very tangible measure that we had was GCSE attainment. That was used to then rank the list of areas.

Mr Sheehan: Fair enough.

Minister, I note that the needs of the Irish-medium education (IME) sector have been recognised in your SEN delivery plan. Can SENCOs in the IME sector who wish to have children supported by the right people at the right time and in the right place access the new digital portal as Gaeilge — in Irish?

Mr Givan: I do not know the answer to that specific question about accessing the portal in Irish, but you rightly highlight the recognition of the Irish-medium sector. There is a need for support, and the publication yesterday includes action to develop bespoke services to support children in the Irish-medium sector. That is one of the areas that we identified as needing support. Forgive me; I do not know about the portal.

Mr Sheehan: You will come back to me on that.

Mr Givan: I am happy to do that.

Mr Sheehan: Finally, I have here the report issued yesterday by Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. It contains the 24 recommendations of the review of Irish-medium education in 2008. They have been colour-coded to indicate progress. None of the recommendations has reached blue, which would mean good progress, and none has reached green, which would mean that the recommendation had been implemented. As you can see, the recommendations are coded yellow, orange and red. Would you like to comment on that?

Mr Givan: Do you mean on how we are supporting the Irish-medium sector in general?

Mr Sheehan: That says a lot —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to hear a very brief answer, because a lot of members are itching to get in.

Mr Givan: I have said countless times that there needs to be support for people who want their children to be educated through the medium of the Irish language. I have no difficulty with that whatever. I have been at the schools and seen what is being provided. There are currently some areas that do not have the services to meet that need. It is a growing sector that requires support. One of the issues is workforce availability: getting people who are able to provide education through the medium of Irish is a challenge. However, where I can provide support, I will. I think that anyone would struggle to identify — I am sure that you would be the first person to do so — where Paul Givan has ever intervened to stop something happening in an Irish-medium school. I have not, nor would I. Why would I? I am there to support all of our different sectors, and I will continue to do that.

Mrs Mason: I will go back really briefly to the point about nursing in special schools, which was brought up earlier. Your intervention in some areas is welcome, but Knockevin School has not had any intervention; it still has no on-site nurse. I have written to you about that, Minister. The school would really appreciate your intervention. A really tragic incident happened in that school recently, so I know that it would really appreciate some intervention. What is your view of the current workload of SENCOs in our schools?

Mr Givan: The workload of all of our teaching staff, including SENCOs, is an issue that is raised with me when I go into schools. Different union representatives also raise workload issues with us and ask how we provide support and how we can provide better career pathways for people. I recognise that it is challenging. I have witnessed that in schools, including Knockevin. I have met the principal on numerous occasions. That is an example of where I intervened and gave approval for a new school to be constructed. That is being taken forward.

I absolutely agree that Knockevin requires nursing support. That was part of the discussions that I had with the Chairman, Michelle Guy, the Health Minister and the principal. I was clear — Nick can correct me — that I did not support the decision to withdraw nurses from settings. I want to see that provision reinstated and enhanced, not diluted.

Mrs Mason: I appreciate that. As I said, the school would appreciate whatever help it can get in that respect.

May I tell you about the point of view of SENCOs?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You need to be brief. There may not be a lot of time for a response.

Mrs Mason: OK. I have loads of direct quotes from them, but, because of the time, I will give you a couple. One of them said:

Another said:

In your opening remarks, Minister, you said that you were:

I wrote that down. What is your view on those quotes?

Mr Givan: They are, sadly, not unique. That has been my experience of the frustrations about the processes when I have gone into schools. I can provide some reassurance, albeit it will be of cold comfort to those who are currently experience those difficulties: the end-to-end review has captured that information. That is why we have taken forward the plans that were published yesterday. It will take time to see the benefits, but we have a clear focus on what needs to be done. It is about how we do it and how we provide the changes that are necessary so that you do not have to repeat those same things to me in a number of years' time. However, significant investment and resource will be required to get us to a place where we better support our children with special educational needs.

Mrs Mason: Without any resource —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Cathy, we are so far out of time here. We know the issues. We will absolutely pick that up in further evidence sessions, but we need to give everyone an opportunity. Time has pretty much beaten us.

Mr Martin: I have one quick question around SEN. The earlier the better, Minister. I know that you get that. I am looking at the reform agenda, the action plan and some of the priority year 1 actions. In the early stage of a child's life, the child is the responsibility of Health, and then responsibility transfers to Education: there is a transfer of responsibility. Can anything be done to better coordinate that transition? That is one question.

My second question relates to support and whether the reform agenda will embed earlier educational psychology and speech and language therapy (SLT) support. My understanding — I do not get it all — is that a lot of SLT is in Health. I know that the impact teams will change that. Specifically, could more be done to get more educational psychology support earlier and, maybe, more speech and language support earlier? Can the process of transition of responsibility for children from Health to Education be handled better?

Mr Givan: Absolutely. I will let Linsey pick up on some of the detail on the earlier sharing of data and so on. Part of the report that was published yesterday speaks to early intervention at two or three years of age and how, even earlier, we ensure that the education system has sight of children who are coming through and can prepare for them. It is absolutely recognised that that needs to be provided.

As part of the design for two- to three-year-olds, there will be a bespoke programme for children with additional needs. That will involve health professionals. We are looking at an assessment centre approach for children aged three to six, in which they would receive preschool and foundation stage education and intervention by AHPs to assess their needs, monitor their development and determine appropriate educational pathways. There will be a focus on that. Linsey, do you want to pick up on a bit more of the detail?

Mrs Farrell: We have picked up on the points that you make under both "Right Support" and "Right Time". On page 8, you will see where we talk about an:

That is about reframing the role of educational psychologists. We have heard a lot of frustration from them about how they are deployed currently and about assessments and referrals, which, of course, are important in the existing system but could play a more constructive role in direct support to schools and in building the capacity and capability of schools to respond early.

You also made a point about speech, language and communication. We have identified that as one of the highest-growing categories of special educational needs. All of the research tells us that, if you get in early in that category of need, you can have tangible, longer-term benefits. That has very much underpinned our work with the Department of Health and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists on the speech, language and communications intervention toolkit and programme. I go back to your earlier point: while the reform agenda uses the terms "pilot", "test" and "trial", the longer-term aim is to create space to make the changes that are required to be made around special educational provision in order to evaluate, monitor and learn, but, importantly, to feed in to longer-term delivery in response to children's needs.

Mr Martin: That is encouraging. It is about flagging the need for SLT and an educational psychologist earlier; those needs are being flagged too late. Earlier is better, and that is transformational for kids. I have seen it in my son. The earlier the better. Let us not hang on the statement. If the right support goes in early enough, the parents will not want or need the statement. They will have the support that the child deserves. That will be transformational.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Let us hope that our chief allied health professionals can give some insight into that at our concurrent briefing and tell us where the workforce will come from.

Mr Baker: I will continue on the statement process. This will be concerning for many parents who are listening, because a statement is so important to them; it is important that they get that support. If we do not have allied health professionals and early intervention in place, which we know is the case, how will this be achievable in practice? How do you get the support that your child will need throughout their time in school? That runs into placements as well, because, if we do not get that support very early, we will not have placements.

We do not have enough special schools, and we already see displacement in our schools. I talk regularly to parents who say that their child would benefit from being in a unit but has been moved into mainstream education, or that a child who should be in a special school is in SPiM. It is having a knock-on effect as we speak. Can you elaborate on that, because there are massive concerns about removing the statement process and classroom assistants? We need to hear about the plan, the pathways, the training and the value that all of those will bring to the system, and we need to hear that those children will not be left behind, because those are the concerns.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are a few questions in there, Minister, but answer what you can in the time.

Mr Givan: They are all hugely important. Danny, let me take you through it at a very high level. All special schools are due to get a report next month, I think, because I asked the EA to assess those 39 schools: what is their capacity to provide enhancement programmes, and can those be extended to provide more places? I have identified the need for four brand-new special schools in Belfast and four outside Belfast, and that work is being undertaken. I hope to get information on where it is proposed that those schools will be and how we take them forward.

You are right: some children who should be in a special school are not, and, therefore, they are not in the right place. Children have been given placements, but a couple of hundred — I am not sure of the exact figure — have been placed in schools that are not the most appropriate. However, because we do not have alternatives, we cannot put them into the right place. We need to address that.

SPiMS has been helpful, and we should accommodate children in mainstream education where we can, because it is a more inclusive education system. This morning, St Patrick's High School in Keady showed me its specialist unit provision, and it works really well for the children there, but it also helps the whole school, in that the school then reflects wider society, and that benefits everyone. There are lots of other examples, and you know them. We need to make sure that they get the right support in SPiM.

I can understand why people fight so hard to get a statement. They do not have the support that they want and believe that they need, and now the frustration is that, even with a statement, they still do not get services. That is why we need to put the work in. We should not need a statement to do the right thing. Parents should not have to take somebody to court and say, "This is what I am entitled to. I am taking you to a tribunal to force you to do it". It reflects poorly on our society if that is what we are doing for our children, and that is what has been happening. I want to move away from that so that people do not feel that they need to get a statement.

We do not have time to go into the classroom assistants issue in any great detail. We need to make sure that we provide career pathways, because there are some hugely capable classroom assistants who want to progress, take on more responsibility and become teachers. There are no current progression opportunities for them to do that. However, we also have to make sure that principals have some flexibility in how they use the resource that becomes available for their school. I have visited St Patrick's High School, Mercy College in north Belfast, Belfast Boys' Model School and Integrated College Glengormley, and, in addition to those four, there are other schools that utilise the resource to employ not classroom assistants but, where appropriate, a full-time teacher who can enable young people in smaller class sizes to become more engaged and, the schools tell me, to have better educational outcomes and become more independent. There will always be examples where one-to-one classroom assistant provision has to be provided and where that is what is right, but there also has to be some flexibility, because principals increasingly tell me, "Actually, I can utilise the resource in a better way that impacts on the young person but also allows me to have a full-time teacher. Currently, even if I felt the classroom assistant was the best option, I cannot recruit one, because they are not there". We have to reflect what is available, and we have qualified teachers who can be utilised.

Some schools are doing that, and other schools have not been able to do that, and there seems to be an inconsistency in how the EA engages with those schools. It is a conversation that we need to have, because, if you speak to constituents, as you will, they will tell you, "The gold standard is that I get a statement, and then I get a classroom assistant. That is the gold standard for my child". Actually, that is not always the case, but that is what is very much believed. In some cases, that is so, but there are other models that, I think, in light of what is already happening on an ad hoc basis in our schools, need to be looked at. The learning that we can get from that can make a big difference across Northern Ireland.

Mr Baker: Can that be achieved operationally? We have had a lot of recommendations over the decades. A lot of this looks great on paper, and it is grand, but, when it gets to the operational side, it is a completely different story.

Mr Givan: It is always a challenge to put the theory and the evidence into practice. We have moved beyond carrying out reviews and conducting research. We have a clear view on what we need to implement. It goes beyond Education, but we have a key role to play in all of this. It will not work if it is only Education, and that is where I need other Departments, particularly Health, to work with me. If we could make that investment, it would make that difference, but we have continued to do what we can with what we have.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister, we are over your time. I ask for your indulgence: will you take more questions? Does your diary permit it?

Mr Givan: I have another meeting, for which I am now late.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have gone over time, so that leaves us where we are, unfortunately. If there are follow-up questions, we will put those in writing. Thank you, all, for your time this afternoon.