Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome Ema Cubitt, the Independent Autism Reviewer. I do not need to do any further introductions, given that you have become a familiar face at the Committee. It is over to you to present, and we will then move into questions and answers. I remind members that we will stick to five minutes per member. Ema, over to you.

Ms Ema Cubitt (Department of Health): I am delighted to be back. Thank you. It is timely. The last time that I was before the Committee was at the joint Committee meeting at Middletown Centre for Autism. It is nice to have been asked at an early stage. I listened outside to some of the last bit, and I hope that I can address some of the issues that you have been talking about.

I want to put it to the Committee today that, obviously, an awful lot has happened in the last 24 hours, but, if I take a step back, I am looking system-wide. As you know, the education system comprises the Department, schools and the Education Authority (EA). Think of each of those being at the points on a triangle: they are not connected. This is probably the first time, with the Minister's statement, that we have got really close to having cohesion. I met the EA yesterday, and I know that its representatives are attending after this session. There is a slight change and a more transparent acknowledgement that they do not want this recurrent special educational needs (SEN) crisis to keep happening.

This week, we have also heard across media outlets from Dr Graham Gault. Incidentally, he contacted me this afternoon. Having heard what the Minister said yesterday, having spoken to the EA and having had that contact with Dr Graham Gault, I think that we are in a place of real opportunity. For a long time, the system did not respond. People were, essentially, shouting into the void about what needed to happen. The system is starting to respond. The opportunity that exists now in this period is really fragile. Between now and the end of this year, the Department, the EA and schools, with the support of the Committee, need to get a grasp of where they are. We have the plan. The attitude in the EA appears to be right. Schools have said that they want to do it together. If there is change in that time, we can look beyond the end of the year at the resilience and sustainability of the overall system.

Before yesterday's announcement from the Minister and the publication of the operational plans, I had already set out what, I think, we need and where the risks lie for progress. We need high traction and low drama — I mean "political drama". We need clear focus and no distraction, and that played out yesterday. Today, we hear more about the use of AI than this critical issue. That is deeply disappointing.

The Minister is right: we are at a pivotal point, but I think that it is fragile. We need unity. Broadly, since the Assembly has been back, there has been unity. Members have spoken clearly about what they want and have said that they want to work with the Minister. As I said, it is fragile. There are risks. Unless each part of the system is in sync, it will not work. If there is a lack of political unity, the same thing will happen this time next year. Special educational needs is a non-partisan issue. I encourage members to look inside themselves, to consider what they know about their constituents and the families whom they have spoken to and not to veer into politics and what comes with that at this critical time between now and the end of year.

The other problem that I foresee is a cultural stasis, with the potential to travel backwards. That risk could be catalysed by the misinformation that is being generated. It is not fully happening in Northern Ireland, but, in England and, likewise, across the ocean in the US, there has been some pretty unsavoury commentary, as we have seen from the broadsheets.

On misinformation, I want to read briefly from an article by Adam Harris, CEO and founder of AsIAm, Ireland's autism charity. The Autism-Europe's international congress was held at the end of last week, and I was at it. In the newspaper article, Adam described the congress in Dublin as:

— with —

He rightly pointed out:

What I have seen and experienced not only professionally but personally is that, as Adam states:

— and in the workplace —

When we think about that, what are the consequences? You may be thinking, "Why is she talking about that in terms of SEN reform?". It is because the real change that needs to happen is cultural, and misinformation is, potentially, the biggest threat to that.

In the article, Adam went on to state:

There is a stark reality about special educational needs specifically in his article; he says that the damage that is done is "not theoretical". Respondents to a report from earlier in 2025 said that being autistic made it more likely for a child to be punished at school. One in four parents said that they would worry if their non-autistic child shared a classroom with an autistic peer. Those are not numbers; they are reminders of the barriers and bias that misinformation creates. When society blames parents for their child's autism or suggests that autistic people are simply opting in for advantage, it adds guilt and suspicion for families who are already fighting for basic support. Adam also states:

He calls for what I call for. He says:

wherever it comes from, and that we should:

In order to make progress and protect against misinformation and a shift backwards, we need to talk about prevalence, which was discussed before I came in, and language. I really want the Committee, particularly in the inquiry, to model language, to lead and to challenge outdated norms and assumptions.

Please indulge me briefly. The question of why SEN rates are increasing was asked. I will try my best to answer it. I took a day and delved into Northern Ireland-specific information. Prior to 1959, there was legislation where Education could, essentially, say, "No, this child is uneducable. They are the problem of Health". Essentially, that child was legally excluded from education, particularly if they had complex needs, and the state had no duty to educate. That meant that people were going into hospital or institutional care. That was removed in 1959 by the Mental Health Act. Children then had the right to education, albeit limited. Obviously, change takes time, so fast forward to 1978 and the Warnock report, which is now outdated in its language. You will maybe have seen it referenced in some of the Department's material on the reform agenda. That was really the building block for special education. It found that, at any stage, the school population that may experience special educational needs would be about 20%. The latest statistics that I have for those experiencing special educational needs in the Northern Ireland school population show that it is 19·8%. People talk about the rise or say, "We didn't see it coming", but Mary Warnock certainly saw it coming in 1978. That report led to the Education and Libraries Order 1986 and beyond. We saw a shift from hospital into education settings, which started to create data. Those children were visible and were being counted.

Another aspect is that, in the 1980s, there were different diagnoses for autism, such as childhood schizophrenia, psychosis and emotionally disturbed, as well as societal labels and pejoratives, such as "lazy", "aloof", "strange" and "weird". Around that time, autism entered the diagnostic criteria. We are only at 1980, but we have to look at other things in the population, such as survival and life expectancy. Life expectancy among certain cohorts of children and young people who have congenital conditions increased. We were doing much better in terms of preterm babies surviving. The statistics for how that has increased show that it is significant. That is a predictable demographic shift that we should welcome; it is a welcome success. With the survival of more children, the outcomes for their neurodevelopmental conditions and development have not changed. Whilst they are surviving, we have to accept that, with that shift, we will see more children and young people with complex needs.

Definitions and diagnoses have broadened and changed over the years. Essentially, it is an identification that we are now recording. Recording has also changed over the years, so we see different numbers. Professional training and understanding has happened, for example, in relation to females with autism. Screening tools have changed. I say to Committee members that you must distinguish in your own minds between true increases in prevalence and increases in identification. The key point is that we are doing much better. Instead of talking about the alarming rise in SEN that we see, look at the progress and improvements that have been made. We now know our population much better.

With regard to language, when we talk about the most vulnerable young people — often swapped with SEN — children and young people with SEN are not inherently vulnerable. The system often makes them vulnerable. I have heard language in the Assembly about "the demand" and "the burden" that those children put on the system. I find it strange that, when we have done better and identified children, we then talk about them in that way.

That is where I am at in what I see. We are in a period of opportunity. While I am here to answer questions, what I want to put to the Committee, particularly at this early stage, is whether the Committee will support the system and the three elements of the system through its scrutiny. Will you support sequencing and readiness, and will you seek joint accountability? From my perspective, I would like to see each element of the education system sitting here together and the Committee really pushing for that joint accountability. Will you support transparency? Will you model and lead with regard to language and culture, and will you challenge and call it out?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. That was a really helpful initial briefing. I hope that you will not mind me referencing a private conversation. I bumped into Ema in the corridor just last week, and, I think, you used the phrase, "The children whom we talk about in this space have always been with us. We have just got better at seeing them".

Ms Cubitt: They have, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I found that to be a helpful way to look at the issue. That was helpful for me, because we need to be really cautious about our language on the subject. Progress has been made: we are identifying need and trying to meet it, although not always succeeding in the "trying to meet" aspect. However, the identification of need should be seen as a positive.

I thank you for your work in this space and for your work over the summer in keeping the issue of placements, in particular, on the agenda. At a time when the media get distracted and this place is not sitting, that was important.

My first question is about the sequencing of events this week — the National Association of Head Teachers' (NAHT) intervention, the EA's response and the Minister's statement — and whether you took comfort from that. You have already answered that in saying that you have taken a degree of comfort that there may be some alignment in the system.

I want to keep to placements, in particular. To me, the issues are threefold. First, how much latitude is in the system to ensure that placements are made available where we need them, and is that something that we can do? Secondly, do we have the resource to do it? Thirdly, are the places that we are creating appropriate? I am not sure that you will want to weigh into the issue of resourcing in too much detail, as you have no control over it. The NAHT was clear in its intervention, saying that we needed to stop blaming schools and school leaders. That was its clear articulation, and there seemed to be a reasonably warm response from the EA to that. However, you cannot disregard the fact that there have been challenges in getting schools, for whatever reason, to take specialist provision placements. If we are to provide for children in the area where they live so that they get the support that they need, how much independence should schools have in taking or not taking a provision?

Ms Cubitt: I spoke to the EA about that yesterday. I am trying to probe into that a bit more. I continue to be concerned about the culture change that is required and, potentially, existing misunderstanding around having children with SEN in your school, class or specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS). Trying to get that change right down to school level — into the hearts and minds of teachers, all the school staff and the board of governors — is probably the biggest challenge.

Whilst I have no issue around the autonomy that schools have, I find that a clear message is lacking as to what we are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland in schools for children with SEN. There is a communication and tone issue that needs to be addressed in the system. If you are on the outside looking in, listening to the media in the past number of days, you see and hear such a disconnect. There is a strong message from the Minister. The EA has essentially said, "We do not want this to happen again". We hear from the head teachers' association. One thing that was missing — I found it interesting in my conversation with Dr Graham Gault — was reference to the package that is available. What I said to the EA was, "You have outlined a very clear package with numbers and figures. Why is that not understood or being properly communicated to head teachers?". There is a disconnect there, but we do not have time to dwell on the whys and wherefores. It is there: we need to get it done.

I also talked about good practice in what we see and what the children can bring to schools. I have seen some good practice. I know personally the benefit of a child being in the right placement and the value of the specialist provision. However, it may be that somewhere there is an underlying stigma or misinformation around what a school with a SPiMS looks like and what is added to your school community. Dr Graham Gault outlines clearly what it means to the teaching profession: the profession wants the best experience for every child. There is a distrust in the autonomy of schools, and that is problematic. How do we get down into the schools?

What I recommend to the Committee is that it may be worthwhile to consider seeking evidence from Middletown Centre for Autism, which goes in and does a whole-school approach. Where things are potentially really not right, it can be incredibly transformative. It can also go in and make better even a school that is doing well. The Middletown Centre for Autism is the expert in permeating it right down to school level. Everything that happens up here in the periphery will not matter if it does not happen in every school.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will ask one other question, as we are up against time, on that second bit. You had already started referring to the appropriateness of a placement. We do not want to rehearse everything that has been said over the last number of weeks about a crisis response and an emergency approach to placements. We are all clear that we must move away from that and need to find ways to do it. However, inevitably, concerns are raised in that context that placements should be appropriate. I saw that, in your correspondence with the EA, you were almost looking for it to come up with some sort of matrix as to how it makes the decision that it is an appropriate placement. Will you outline what, you think, an appropriate placement looks like, particularly where Health interacts, the workforce that needs to come into that and the physical infrastructure that a child in a specialist placement should have around them? What does that look like?

Ms Cubitt: I can provide a more detailed answer to that, and I can reference best practice in what school readiness looks like. It obviously depends on the profile of the child. I will give a really short answer that, I hope, is still satisfactory: it is culture. It will not matter what a school has in place or what the building is like — there are so many variables — but it will come down to the culture in the school and the attitude. I believe that wholeheartedly. With the right attitude, schools can deliver with very little.

It should not be like that, but it is the reality.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will finish with a comment: if you want to respond to it, you may. I hear from your evidence that you are approaching the issue with a degree of hope. You think that there is an opportunity for a reset of the culture of how the system manages placements for children with special educational needs and steps in to meet needs but that it is not a given that that will all play out as we wish it to. You also think that there are pressures and challenges in the system and attitudinal and cultural issues at play that leave the situation fragile. You are hopeful but also clear that now is the time to step up. Have I understood that correctly?

Ms Cubitt: That is exactly it. I am hopeful, but the opportunity must be grasped. There is a unique point in time for this opportunity between now and Christmas. If everybody does not get on board, we will see the same thing next year. I want to be back here saying not that I was right but that, essentially, everybody got on board. We cannot afford not to. That is the issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will bring the Deputy Chair in, and members can indicate to the Clerk that they want to ask questions.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks, Ema, for your presentation. You are on record saying that the North's:

and that a whole generation of children has been "traumatised". What do you see as the main contributing factors to that?

Ms Cubitt: I will give an answer that is similar to the one I gave to the Chair. It is about culture. When I speak to adults who have had difficult school experiences, I find that that has been because of a lack of understanding. I referenced the Industrial Revolution because that is where education started. Our world has changed so much, and the workplace has changed so much. When I work in the employment sphere with employers, one thing that I see is that it is much further ahead. That sphere and the schooling system are disjointed. Are we really preparing young people for today's world? The change, essentially, has to be cultural. We have to move away from punitive, inflexible structures in schools and school days and give our children and young people a bit of grace.

Mr Sheehan: I understand what you say. Sometimes, one of the most difficult things to change in any system or organisation is the culture.

Ms Cubitt: Absolutely.

Mr Sheehan: How would you go about bringing about change in the culture?

Ms Cubitt: It has to start at the top, and that includes the language that is used and the discussions that are held in the Assembly, including the Education Committee. One of the most powerful things that can happen with cultural change — I am under no illusions about how difficult this is — is for leaders to model that change. I have been both heartened and disheartened watching sessions in the Assembly since it came back. There are some who are more in step and in the right place, but getting that is not a massive ask. If our leaders are not modelling the cultural change that we need to see, I do not know how we can expect everyone else to follow.

Mr Sheehan: It is accepted across the board that, in trying to make changes, there needs to be, first, early intervention and, secondly, collaboration across Departments. There are what were originally called "multidisciplinary groups", although their name has changed on numerous occasions. There was an expectation that those multidisciplinary groups would have allied health professionals (AHPs) on them so that, if a school needed wrap-around support, it could call on those groups and so on. We are now being told that those groups are called "local impact teams", and I will add the caveat that that name may have changed again; I am not sure. The point is that they will now not be populated by allied health professionals. How much of a backward step is that, and how important is that collaboration between Education and Health?

Ms Cubitt: It is critical. Given that joint accountability that I was talking about, Health should be at the table with the other parts of the education system. We all hear the phrase "siloed working". It is certainly real in how things happen operationally. It is frustrating. There has to be an acknowledgement that, no matter what schools do or have in place, the children in those schools need support from allied health professionals — they absolutely do. We are a bit of an outlier in where we are with supporting children in schools. Having listened to people at the congress, I know that, even in Ireland, the approach is different. That must not detract from the progress that needs to be made, but the point is that, if this is going to work and you are going to have all those special schools, that part needs to be baked in in order for those children to thrive.

The other issue about the AHPs and local impact teams is the impact on teachers. Teachers are teaching professionals, so it is unfair that they are required to carry out some of the medical interventions that are asked of them. That has an impact on teachers and how they deal with their day-to-day role in that it eats up their capacity. If we are —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Can you draw your answer to a close?

Ms Cubitt: I am sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No, you are OK.

Ms Cubitt: That is me finished.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you.

Mr Baker: Thank you for your time and for all the work that you are doing in the field. I want to come at this by saying that I have hope for next year — I really do — but, when I look at my caseload and the parents whom I work with, I see the placements issue and the reduced timetables.

I would like to hear your experience and what you are picking up on about children who end up on a reduced timetable or kids who do not have a place now. I do not know of one example of a child being offered a place in mainstream education and that place not being ready for them. Over the past couple of weeks, the media narrative has been that six children have not been placed this year, but, in reality, the number is in the hundreds, and children are still sitting at home. Where can we find hope in that? I am already picking up that there will be reduced timetables again this year, and we are only a week after the issues with the transport.

Ms Cubitt: Yes. You are getting the same issues as I have been getting. We cannot undo the harm and trauma that have already been caused to families, which is the sad part, but my hope is that we will move forward with the opportunity that is in front of us.

One issue that I wanted to raise was about the children who are, essentially, invisible in the system. The numbers that have been talked about since, really, the end of June do not reflect what I hear, which is people saying, "My child has not been in school for two years". I am working through that with the EA. I have a massive concern that there are children who are out of school, are on reduced timetables or have been asked to leave and come back after a few weeks — all those scenarios — and that that information is held by the schools and is not shared. I am talking to the EA about the disincentives that exist in sharing that information with it. If you put someone on a reduced timetable or have informally excluded them, that is illegal. As a school, how do you feel about sharing that information with the EA in order to ask for support? I am concerned that there are hundreds of children out of school — hundreds.

Mr Baker: That is what I am picking up on. It almost feels as though the fight changes for parents and is not with the EA. If the EA is misplacing children, as it were, it always has to come back to the top, which is the Department of Education and the Minister. The parent is focused on the school, and the school is then burdened with that and cannot handle it. I have had cases where parents have asked me, "Should I accept this place?", and, particularly this year, I have said, "Go and talk to the school leader. Lay out what your child needs and see what they say". More often than not, the parent then knows that the place is not there, but their link officer is telling them that it is the only available place. Again, I want to be hopeful, as I would like to see that for next year, but I am still not convinced that the EA is not doing it by numbers.

It looks at the data and says, "We have nought who are not placed", but that is not the reality.

Ms Cubitt: I am digging into that, and I will not give up on it. It has to happen anyway on the basis of what we have heard this week from the Education Authority and the Department. It has to go ahead. In the interim, I do not want those other children to be left behind. They do not easily appear in the numbers. I discussed that with the Education Authority yesterday. I can certainly share my findings with the Education Committee, whatever they reveal, but it will not be easy to track some of those children.

When your child's timetable is reduced or you are asked to keep your child at home, there comes a point where you just accept it. It is not acceptable — never. I am hopeful, but I am not entirely hopeful in a broad sense, because there is still a lot of work to do outside what we have heard about over the past few days.

Mr Baker: It does not cost any money to communicate with parents. Communication, whether about placements or transport, has been poor again this year. Simple communications have not happened, and that is really unfair. Going forward, you can have all the money in the world, but, if you cannot communicate with the people who are impacted, you do not, I feel, understand them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Can you give a brief final response?

Ms Cubitt: I have a real bee in my bonnet about transport. That is another thing that I am taking forward with the EA. We spoke about it yesterday albeit briefly. It is a nonsensical issue in this day and age. It makes no sense, and it is unfair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You made the point that you have hope about the placements but there are so many other pressures in the system. Hopefully, the inquiry will draw out how those are connected. A placement can be done in a timely manner and can be the right placement, but, if there are no support services or the culture in the school is wrong, we have a real issue.

Mr Burrows: This is a preamble, but I absolutely agree that all conversations about such issues should be had with compassion and without judgement. To assist people in that, given that we sometimes have to ask questions, which can be difficult when we are not specialists — we are generalists, if you like — is there a useful guide on unacceptable language for people such as us, laypeople, members of the public and teachers that details the words that should and should not be used?

Ms Cubitt: I do not know whether there is a guide that is specific to Northern Ireland. It is on my long to-do list. I have had discussions about supporting MLAs on language use. It is not always perfect. We get it wrong. It is not the end of the world, but language shapes how policy is developed and what works. If you are interested in such a guide, I can certainly work on it and connect with you on language.

Mr Burrows: That would be useful. Thank you.

Do you agree that children with special educational needs are at a higher risk, particularly in a mainstream school, because they are misunderstood by teachers? I think that you said that there is a higher percentage of discipline for such children in mainstream schools. I do not want to get into the space that the Justice Minister got into. Is there a higher risk of teachers misunderstanding children with SEN and disciplining things that are linked to their condition, and is there a higher risk of bullying by other pupils?

Ms Cubitt: On your second point, I will be honest and say that I do not regularly hear of bullying. Given where we are nowadays, bullying happens — there is no doubt about that — and it can disproportionately affect children with SEN. Children are sometimes much more understanding than adults.

You asked about teachers misunderstanding children. I will reflect on the email that I got from Dr Graham Gault. Teachers do not want to be complicit in something that is not right or potentially damaging for children. There is a mindset in the education piece that starts at the beginning of your teaching career. If you are in the middle or near the end of your teaching career, there are immense resources that help you to understand a child's behaviour. Essentially, it comes down to this: be open; be curious about the individual who is standing right in front of you there and then; and be non-judgemental. I know that we have training courses and that there is lots to consider, but it is not rocket science. What is in front of you is a child, essentially.

Mr Burrows: Your values, yes.

Ms Cubitt: Yes.

Mr Burrows: Last week, we heard from the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) about the vital role that inspection plays in safeguarding and standards and in spotting cultures. Does unimpeded inspection play a vital role in protecting children with special educational needs?

Ms Cubitt: I can state it simply like this: I can see no circumstance in which an inspection should not be allowed to proceed. It is critical. Probably quite controversially, I replied to the consultation on that legislation, and I support it. This is potentially because of my background, but I do not understand why an inspection would not happen. Regulation and inspections are good for everybody.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that. Just to make my point clear, I will say that, as I said last week, those who oppose the legislation are on the wrong side of history. There should be no disruption to inspection. It is about the safeguarding of children, not the comfort of adults.

My final point is about being compassionate. You used the word "curious".

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to note the time. This should be a really quick final question.

Mr Burrows: I am still curious — it is vital to be curious — about things such as trends, apparent disproportionality and where the figures will go if trends continue. We talk about demand — that is important — but, when you are delivering public services, you have to model demand. I know that that is not nice language, because we are talking about real human beings. It is the same as when you deal with bed spaces and so on. During COVID, you had to model demand, but that involved people. This is not so much a question —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask you to make it quickly, because I have been strict on time with everybody, and you are over time.

Mr Burrows: It is vital that we do not duck away from asking important questions and trying to sense what the increase is and why it is there. You made a useful point about children who are born prematurely and how there might be a higher likelihood of their having such needs: I had not considered that. One of the benefits of getting the information is that it allows us to fill the void and stop disinformation, because we need to be educated about the issue. I did not consider that, and I am glad that you raised it. I now fully understand it. I just want to make the point that more information about the issue is vital.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have to move on. I have given you a fair bit of latitude with your time.

Mr Burrows: I got my two good questions that I am pleased with. Thanks.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Ema, for the really powerful evidence. You have given us all a bit of a jolt in the right direction today. I mean that. I know that I have probably used some of the phrases that you highlighted, although not in any way intentionally. I know for a fact that I have, so I am grateful to have that awareness. If you can keep us right, please do — always.

A lot has been covered. I want to go back to misinformation. I would like you to say a bit more about any concerns that you have about the growing narrative in that space, because it is really important. We have seen misinformation spiral in lots of ways across education. The conversation becomes distorted, and we put our time and energy into talking about the wrong things. Please highlight what, you think, is driving that misinformation and how we can be vigilant in order to make sure that we do not allow the conversations to spiral in the wrong direction.

Ms Cubitt: I was going to comment on what Jon said to mention that issues that concern prevalence, cause and trends may remain repeat issues. Misinformation tends to raise more questions than it answers, and you can spend a lot of time following a line. The vaccine issue has come up again. It has been completely debunked, but it is rising again.

Mr Burrows: I agree, yes.

Ms Cubitt: If it is going to be a distraction in the inquiry, while there may not be capacity to research it, you may have to make a decision that you either look at it and decide or you just accept that the population is as it is and you need to work with it.

The other questions are about prevalence and cause, and there are even questions about misinformation. To what end would you look at those? If you do research on that, to what end would that be? What would you find? Would you then decide that those children do not deserve the support? You have to ask, "To what end do I want to look into this?".

Although this has not been broadcast, I spoke about misinformation that was in an article published in 'The Spectator'. The article was unpalatable, and I wish that it had not had airtime at all. What I said has not been broadcast and, hopefully, will not be. The article was about parents gaming the system and women sitting around dinner tables trying to get their child 10 more minutes so that they can get ahead in exams. I do not really want to go into the detail of it, because I do not want to give it any more airtime. However, I would be happy to provide a report on misinformation to the Committee if that would inform it about where I see the risks. It was a massive point of discussion at the European congress, and it causes great hurt and distress not only to those with autism but to disabled people. While I am happy to speak more on the matter, I do not want to give it too much of an airing because I do not want it to generate too much discussion in this setting. However, I can certainly link in with the Committee.

Mrs Guy: What you have said is helpful. It is key to where we want to get to. We want to keep focused in the inquiry and to talk about the issues that are in the here and now and need to be resolved. That information is helpful for us if we start to veer off into directions that are not focused.

Ms Cubitt: I can let you know.

Mrs Guy: Yes, do, because what we do needs to be productive.

Ms Cubitt: It needs to be focused with time. There are so many distractions, and we need to keep a clear focus on where we are going, what we are doing and why we are doing it. If we go off on a tangent, why and to what end?

Mrs Guy: I have one more question. It is broad, but that is deliberate. We talk a lot about the placements issue, which is really important. Danny, you touched on some of the other broader issues, and, Ema, I know that you aware of the full scale of the pressures in special educational needs. What concern in particular do you want to highlight? You mentioned transport. Can you tell us a bit more about your specific concerns on how the transport system is connected to this issue?

Ms Cubitt: I have had numerous messages and emails about transport. There is a communication issue, and I discussed that with the EA yesterday. There needs to be better communication about who is picking a child up and the checks that have been gone through.

Mrs Guy: We are at 17 September, and you are still dealing with that.

Ms Cubitt: I probably still will be by Christmas. I appreciate the fact that, with timing and late placements in particular, this is difficult. You could be a child in a special school who is going into your last year. You have been going to school for all those years, but then your taxi does not turn up. What does that tell you? I find that to be hurtful for the child and their family.

You should look at transport not just as a means of getting a child from A to B; it goes right to the heart of belonging. There is no point having a place for a child in a school if they cannot get there, but they need to start with their peers. That is really important. In today's age, with all the technology and software that we have, we are talking about children going to school. There are firms that deal with the logistics of that. I still cannot fathom how my post gets from A to B and how my Amazon parcels arrive multiple times a day. There are ways and means of getting a child to school. This is more important than a parcel. This is a child, and the issue really needs to be looked at in that sense.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask that you draw that point to a close. I have no doubt that we will look at transport in the inquiry. Transport is a really big part of the issue. We are not here to talk about cost, but there is huge waste in the transport system that could be invested in meeting the needs of the children who are at the heart of the matter.

Mr Burrows: There is also safety to consider. If children are travelling unsupervised, I am not content that the taxi-licensing system is adequate for that. A man was recently convicted by a court — he was a taxi driver — and he has multiple convictions for all kinds of serious crime. I hope that the vetting of people who are taking children to school does not rely on the fact that the taxi-licensing system has said that they are a fit and proper person. They have unsupervised access to a child.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will absolutely get into that with the EA, and we will have it in to talk about it.

Mr Burrows: It could be a massive problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Transport and all that go beyond SEN.

Mr Brooks: Probably inadvertently, you may have realised why some have been sceptical about our asking for research. The vaccine theory was debunked long ago, and I was annoyed to see it raise its head again. Jon raised it today, and we have raised it before. We had a genuine reason to ask for research. We did so to give us knowledge that we do not have. I do not have such expertise. It is right that, where there is an issue, we do not guess what the outcome may be but instead get to grips with the possible causes. Perhaps you will say something about that, because I suspect that there is not agreement across all the groups that operate in the autism sector on what the causes may be. That would at least give us an understanding of some of the views that are out there.

Mandatory training for teachers was discussed at the Committee before we got into different issues. Is mandatory training for teachers to teach children with autism something that the system should aspire to providing?

Ms Cubitt: If you look at the statistics on children with SEN and those who are autistic, you will see that providing training seems a bit of a no-brainer. Teachers want to know whom they are teaching and what they need in order to do so. I have learnt that, when you say "mandatory", that creates a bit of hesitation among unions, but it is not about forcing people to learn. There seems to be a lot of goodwill to learn and do better, and mandatory training would address that. Training needs to begin at the start of the journey, but it needs to be provided intermittently as well. What we know about how we communicate with autistic people and about how they experience the world has changed dramatically over the past 10 years, and that is because autistic adults are more open to talking about their experiences and more able to do so. Training is essential, however. It is essential for capacity building in teachers themselves.

I apologise, Chair, for going on. A study was done in Greece. The evaluation of it is not quite finished, but the study looked not at children but solely at teachers and their capacity. It looked at a school with a high number of exclusions, and the study considered how teachers viewed themselves, their role, the pupils and the options and tools that they had. Once the training had finished, there were no more exclusions in the school. Critically, stress levels among teachers went way down. When we talk about teachers and capacity, it is not just about skills or resources but about how teachers manage their own internal stress. Co-regulation education is a really powerful tool, so, if you have a child who is struggling and your calm meets their chaos, that is massively impactful, but, if teachers, as with all of us, are really under stress, it is more difficult for them to deal with that child or young person.

Mr Brooks: I take your point that certain aspects may cause issues for unions and so on. I do not mean to be disparaging about unions, but, particularly in this space, we are focused on the children. We work with teachers to try to make things as smooth as possible for them, but the focus has to be on making the teaching work, and, at the moment, it is not working. When I engaged with special school leaders, I heard that, when places come up in special schools, teachers and teaching assistants are often intimidated at the idea of working in a special school, because they did not have that experience during their training. It therefore seems to me that some element of mandatory training would be beneficial. Do you agree?

Ms Cubitt: I agree, yes. It is always really positive to keep improving yourself through training and learning. As an aside, I am not stating this as a position that I hold, but, in the special schools that I have been in, teachers who have not taught in a special school, even for a short time, are really missing out. There is a lot to be learned from children and teachers alike in a special school.

There is something unique about going into a special school. Being in that space can only benefit teachers. We are in the early stages of connecting and engaging with Stranmillis University College, but, if teachers want to do better for their pupils, training is part of the package.

Mr Brooks: Even in mainstream education now, teachers have to —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David, I have other members to bring in.

Mr Brooks: OK. I will just ask quickly about your engagement, because you have been working in that space. At this stage, have you been engaging with many local groups that operate in the autism field. What have they told you are their priorities?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Will you give a short response, please, Ema? It is a wide-ranging question, so that may be difficult.

Ms Cubitt: I will try my best, but I am one person. I have limited capacity, but I am happy to chat about that at another time.

Mr Brooks: Thank you.

Mrs Mason: Thank you very much, Ema, for your evidence today. It really has been enlightening. I want to steer the conversation towards childcare and early years provision. It has been a bugbear for me since my taking up my role on the Committee.

I hear the term "early intervention" over and over again. In every document that is produced, I read about early intervention. I would like to get your view on it. I am not sure that there is an understanding of what "early intervention" means or of what it should look like. If we were serious about early intervention, we would not have huge shocks in the system whenever it comes to placements, and we certainly would not have new local impact teams set up that did not have allied health professionals on them. That is my view, but I am keen to hear your view on early intervention, what it should look like, specifically for childcare and early years provision.

Ms Cubitt: I agree, because I am not entirely sure that I know what "early intervention" is. The term is put out there, but it is not always clear what it means. As for what it should look like, when a child or a family has a difficulty, whatever that may be, that is a need that needs to be supported at that time. The emotional health and well-being framework addresses that to some extent. Instead of having parents on waiting lists to access a service, the need that is there at that moment can be addressed. It is too early to say what that would look like.

There is, however, no doubt that childcare and early years provision have to be right, because those are formative years for development and belonging, as well as for capacity for parents. Having had two children and availed myself of childcare, I appreciate how unbelievably expensive it is, but, when parents have been brave enough to speak out and say, "This is the impact that it has on my life and what it looks like", again, you are eating away at parents' capacity to do what they need to do, which is to parent their child and support them.

I cannot give you a definitive answer about what early years provision should look like. I think, however, that children's needs — the needs of children with additional needs, with disability or with autism — are also human needs. When we talk about early intervention, we must not put something on top of what is a human need. Everybody should be entitled to the support that they need in the way in which the rest of us can access it. Yes, that support needs to be tailored, but it also needs to be available in mainstream education and in the community.

I am sorry, Cathy. I do not know whether that has answered your question. I am happy to engage with you later on early intervention.

Mrs Mason: No, that is great, Ema. I often find in conversations with professionals that they feel that the preschool sector is the forgotten sector, specifically for children with special educational needs. It is really the goodwill of the sector that is supporting those children at the minute. You said that you do not know what that support should look like, but we are anxiously awaiting a childcare and early years strategy. Have you had any dealings with the Minister or the group that is developing the strategy? I ask because, to me, early intervention is such a wide-ranging thing, but early years provision, as you say, presents the ideal opportunity to capture those children and support them and their parents.

Ms Cubitt: I have not had any conversations about or engagement on the strategy, but I will now look at it. I connected with a nursery about outdoor education in nature, and what it does is phenomenal. It manages a broad range of needs, including high-support needs. I was really interested in the innovation in that setting and what it has been able to achieve. For children who have been able to avail themselves of such a placement, the transition to primary school is made much easier, and teachers can start to identify and address the needs that are there. Unfortunately, my capacity means that I have to make hard choices about what I can focus my time on, but I will have a look at the strategy and see how I can help.

Mrs Mason: When we finally get to see it, that is. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is a good point under which to draw a line on today. That brings us to the end of our session. It has been a really helpful opening session for our inquiry. We are looking at placements, but some of the broader issues that you have brought to the table, Ema, will really help how we examine the issues and frame our commentary on them. I am sure that you will be back with us before too long. We really appreciate your time today.

Ms Cubitt: Thank you very much.