Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): You have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation, Siobhán, and then we will open up for questions. The floor is yours.

Professor Siobhán O'Neill (Mental Health Champion): Super. I provided the Committee with a written briefing. This will be a shorter version of that.

I always start with statistics. I will start with the statistics on the mental health of young people in Northern Ireland, which are from the 2022 young persons behaviour and attitudes survey, which found that well-being in 14-year-olds had declined to its lowest ever level and that girls had lower scores than boys. The 2025 life and times survey showed that 39% of 16-year-olds had fair or poor mental health. However, looking at the screener questions for detecting mental illness, we see that the stats are even worse, with 45·5% of 16-year-olds having a probable mental illness — over half of girls and a third of boys.

The Education Committee is important to this, because education is a setting in which mental health can be promoted through whole-school well-being programmes, mental health in the curriculum and focused well-being support for young people. The benefits of promoting well-being in schools include higher academic achievement and reduced absences, exclusions and disciplinary issues. Mental health programmes also lower the demand for one-to-one SEN support, and the interventions lead to improved employment prospects and reduced costs to Health and Justice.

Universal social and emotional learning in the curriculum brings with it the highest economic gains and facilitates positive relationships, reduced disruptive behaviour, engagement in learning and improved cognitive and academic performance. In the UK, the gains are estimated to be around £5 for every £1 invested in social and emotional learning, and there is evidence from other countries that that might be much higher. The Department of Education and the Department of Health jointly launched the children and young people's emotional health and well-being in education framework in 2021. The framework is the delivery mechanism for our well-being programmes, alongside the Education Authority's (EA) school counselling service, Holistic Options for Promoting rEsilience (HOPE).

I will provide the Committee with an update on the framework and on social and emotional learning in the curriculum. The Northern Ireland curriculum review recommended the development of:

The content of the speeches at the launch left me in no doubt that that referred to social and emotional learning. I see that as being a positive step, although I have reservations about employability being included in it. The Department's response is that the curriculum task force will consider that recommendation further because the approach risks conflating two fundamentally different educational purposes. I have been assured that I will have an opportunity to contribute to that, once it commences. That is all positive; it is going in the right direction.

In January 2025, two thirds of schools in Northern Ireland had engaged with one or more projects in our framework. However, only 46% of post-primary schools had any provision, so the proportion goes away down. The number of schools with specific programmes can get very low indeed. A quarter of post-primary schools had emotional well-being teams, and those teams do not provide individual support now. One in 10 schools had a whole-school approach programme — that is the Being Well Doing Well programme — and 31% of primary schools had engaged with regional integrated support for education (RISE). The resilience education assisting change to happen (REACH) programme operated in one in 10 primary and post-primary schools, and those last two programmes do provide that one-to-one support. Many other schools bring in outside agencies to deliver programmes, and some have dedicated staff or create their own programmes. Quality data around that is not currently available, but, anecdotally, some of them really are excellent.

With all of that said, Northern Ireland is behind the other UK regions on mental health in schools. In England, there are over 600 mental health support teams in schools, and 52% of pupils there are supported. That is going to rise to 60%. Those teams offer the psychological interventions and the one-to-one support. They support the schools on positive culture, staff advice and training, and they also coordinate with external services. When you compare that with what we are doing here, you see that we really are quite different. The Welsh Government have gone even further. They have introduced statutory guidance requiring all schools to adopt a whole-school approach to mental health and emotional well-being. Mental health and well-being are now core parts of the curricula in England and Wales. Mental health in schools is a key element of peacebuilding, since poor mental health is related to social violence and prejudice, including racism, which we all know is a massive problem at the minute in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am asking the Department to expand the provision in schools to address that growing need and even to consider dedicated funding for community and voluntary sector organisations to bring them into the framework.

I will move on to neurodiversity. Whilst the Committee's focus on SEN is really welcome, I think that it is important that the Committee review diversity approaches generally in education. As you aware, neurodiversity is the range of differences in individual brain processing styles and the normal differences in the population, but it also includes the clusters of those traits that are the conditions that we know to be autism, ADHD and a range of others. Whilst the traits that people with neurodiversity have are normal, the conditions when the traits cluster together can be disabling because the structures and attitudes of society create barriers to participation. The education system is an example of that. A child with neurodiversity can very easily be overwhelmed if the classroom is overstimulating. Some neurodivergent children have difficulty sitting still, and many have difficulty with the attention and communication style that we might have in a typical classroom. The cumulative effect of those challenges and the masking that children engage in to try to get through the day and behave as they are expected to behave can result in chronic stress and poor mental health. Of course, it impairs that child's learning. I currently have a PhD student, Jamie, who is looking at the data on this, and it is quite stark. According to the 2019 youth well-being prevalence survey, people with autism and ADHD are 28% of that sample of 11-to-19-year-olds, and that group has elevated rates of anxiety and depression, with depression at 17·8% compared with 7·3% in typical groups. Self-harm is at 16% compared with 7·2%, and suicidal ideation is at nearly a quarter versus one in 10. Disordered eating is really high in the neurodivergent group as well.

What I am saying is that schools need to be neurodiversity-informed environments and that we need to be promoting affirmative practices to improve the experience of those young people. Schools need to be responding to neurodiversity rather than specialist services. I realise that there is a resource implication there, but that is the direction that we need to be moving here. We need to be reviewing our education policies through a neurodiversity lens. The curriculum review is really good in that respect. There is talk about a more inclusive curriculum, and I am going to work to ensure that that is reflected in the next stages. You can see that a recognition of neurodiversity is absent from recent policies on, for example, uniforms or mobile phones in schools.

Today, I want to discuss our ending violence against women and girls strategic framework. The initial actions in that area — campaigns, tech innovations and support in community settings — are very modest, I have to say. They are unlikely to lead to the changes in attitudes and behaviours that we really need. The most crucial actions are those preventative actions: the work to change the harmful attitudes of boys and men and to teach respect and consent. That has to be done through the education system. There is no implementation plan for those actions yet. I would like you to look at that and consider it.

Moving on, I want to talk about the impact of the recent decisions around transgender pupils. Gender diversity exists. Transgender pupils have a higher risk of poor mental health and suicidal thoughts. One study that was conducted a number of years ago actually showed that 43·5% of transgender people in Northern Ireland had attempted suicide. The evidence indicates very strongly that gender-affirming policies and supporting safety in the school setting are protective. A Department of Education survey in 2017 found that two thirds of LGBT+ pupils did not feel welcomed or valued at school, and only 55% felt safe at school. The same survey found that most transgender young people felt that teachers did not understand them, and four in ten transgender pupils reported inconsiderate use of their forename by staff. Some even reported transphobic remarks by teachers. Almost three quarters said their experience at school impacted on their well-being. That was in 2017, before the rise in hate crime that we have seen since 2019.

In view of that, the removal of the guidance on supporting trans young people, and then the guidance that was circulated to schools, is incredibly concerning. The Equality Commission highlighted significant uncertainty regarding the application of the Supreme Court ruling in Northern Ireland, so it was not necessary for the Department to provide that guidance. The guidance on pronouns could be interpreted as permitting teachers to engage in behaviour that is experienced as cruel and harmful. That would certainly come under the definition of bullying, which is the repetitive intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group where the relationship involves a power imbalance. Bullying is harmful to mental health. That is why I am talking about it today. In the study of LGBT pupils in Northern Ireland, some pupils referred to bully-like behaviour by teachers. In view of those risks, I am therefore asking that the guidance be withdrawn and that the previous guidance be put back on the website and circulated again. Anecdotally, though, I have to say that many of our schools here provide supportive settings for gender-divergent young people and work really hard to ensure that those young people feel safe in schools and that diversity is welcomed.

On school uniforms, the recent legislation was a missed opportunity to tackle poverty, which is a key driver of mental ill health. Uniforms can create disparity of access, particularly for families facing financial pressures and for disabled or neurodivergent children. In keeping with trauma-informed practice, lists of uniform items should be co-produced with pupil councils, considering the needs of pupils and the promotion of equity and inclusivity. A trouser option should always be available. No pupil should be forced to wear clothing that leaves them vulnerable to upskirting, for example, or feeling exposed. Attention should be paid to how uniform items are perceived by neurodivergent pupils and disabled young people. That is really important. Pupils should never be in a position where they feel that they cannot participate in physical education, which is really important for mental health, because they cannot wear the uniform.

Finally, you will be glad to know, I come to restraint and seclusion. I have written to the Minister explaining my significant concerns regarding the Education (NI) Order 1998, which allows the use of force to maintain "good order and discipline" in schools. There is no doubt that restraint and seclusion are traumatising and can lead to lifelong mental health difficulties. Those practices have no place in our education system. There was a commitment from the Department that article 4(1)(c) of the Education Order would be repealed and that guidelines would be produced to support schools to eliminate that practice. My office currently sits on the reference group overseeing the production of the guidance. Our group has long had concerns regarding the direction of the discussions within the group and the rejection of proposals to base the guidance on a modified version of the guidance that is currently used in health settings. Our approach was to actively participate and be solution-focused. We have since been informed that the guidance has now been agreed by a task and finish group. I thought that we were on that group. Despite being a member of the reference group, however, I have not seen the revised guidance. My concern is that the task and finish group does not have stakeholder representation of the nature that is required. Of course, I am also concerned that the guidance produced may not adequately protect children from cruelty, harm and trauma. Therefore, in my letter to the Minister I sought assurances that article 4(1)(c) will be repealed and asked for an opportunity to review the guidance in collaboration with children's health and welfare experts to ensure that it protects children from trauma.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thank you very much. I will kick off on the last issue there: restraint. You will be aware of some of the horrific evidence that the Committee has heard on restraint and seclusion. We heard of a number of cases such as a child strapped into a chair and another child tethered to a fence, and the parents found out about that only when they saw a photo in the school yearbook where the child was tied to the fence. How would situations such as those affect the mental health of children, especially some of our most vulnerable children who already have learning difficulties?

Professor O'Neill: That is a traumatic experience for the child. There is physical pain at the time, and there is often injury. The child is really scared and goes into the fight or flight or freeze response if it happens. Often, that response is activated. The growing brain means that that response can be activated really quickly, and a child can be literally terrorised going back into that setting. There can be flashbacks and nightmares. The chronic activation of the stress response system is associated with mental illness, especially in the growing brain, and it is a lifelong thing. You are talking about triggers almost that are wired in and then activated throughout that child's life. It is hard to overstate the impact of that on a child's mental health. That is really harmful and should never happen.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): We have heard arguments that there should always be a right to restrain under certain circumstances, particularly when there is challenging behaviour, but we have also heard evidence that there are de-escalation measures that can be deployed rather than restraint. Are you familiar with that?

Professor O'Neill: Absolutely. There is an article in that legislation that permits the use of restraint under exceptional circumstances. If the child is going to harm themselves or somebody else, then that is permitted. We are talking here about the use of this for discipline and behaviour management, and it is just never appropriate. It is totally unnecessary. It harms everybody. It harms the children who are seeing that happen in the school setting as well. It is really inappropriate, and teachers do not want to be doing it. They want that guidance. They do not want to be left with no other way to manage behaviour. I am not familiar with the exact de-escalation techniques, but I imagine that I know a bit about what they would look like.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): What response have you had from the Minister to your request?

Professor O'Neill: It went in only yesterday.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): OK.

Professor O'Neill: We were just summing up. We wanted to clarify with the working group whether there were going to be more meetings. We had no responses. We wanted to give the group an opportunity to respond properly, so we left it to the last minute to get this. Obviously, we have not had a response from the Minister yet, but no doubt we will.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): I will turn now to the emotional health and well-being framework. You have been a big advocate for that in schools, and you helped to shape the report. What tangible evidence is there that the mental health of children in our schools has improved since that report came out?

Professor O'Neill: Since the framework came out?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Yes.

Professor O'Neill: We are currently looking at how that is going to be evaluated, so we do not have mental health data from before and after. However, the interventions in the programme are all evidence-based, so where they have been used in other settings, there has been a change that we can record. We do not have the data for the pupils in the school, but you know that if pupils go through the social and emotional learning — for example, elements of Being Well, Doing Well — they will have skills, and they can then go back and show how that will change mental health outcomes. There is educational attainment as well. Up until the late teens, this makes a real difference, but we do not have that data. It has been in place for only a couple of years. Only a tiny proportion of young people have gone through those programmes, but they do make a difference. There is strong evidence to support their use.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thank you. My final question, for now, is on the transfer test. Many mental health professionals have highlighted that as one of the areas where there is stress and anxiety that is detrimental to our children's mental health. Have you had any discussions with the Minister on that?

Professor O'Neill: No. I know only that the Minister is not minded to change the procedures. We had that the last time I presented at the Education Committee, I think, or maybe the one before that. I have asked for that. It is in the independent review of education. I am continually calling for that to be looked at and asking for progress to be made on it, because there are some really important suggestions in there that should be taken forward. It is not just about removing a test; it is about changing the whole system so that this test, if it is going to be used — even under the review, some schools would still be using the test, but it would reduce the proportion of pupils who would go though it. It is about streamlining the system so that it becomes fairer for all pupils. I do not advocate taking one test away and having nothing in its place. We need to really look at the whole system and at how it can be transformed. The independent review of education is the expert guidance on how that should happen and what it should look like. That is where we need to go with it. It is sad that, every year, I get queries from parents saying, "How will I help my child get through this?" It is awful for some families.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): I will open it up to members.

Mrs Mason: Thanks, Siobhán. There is so much in your report and so many topics that we could cover, but there are two specific ones. You mentioned school uniforms. You described the legislation that we have as a "missed opportunity", and I tend to agree with you. Take the point of view of, for talk's sake, a teenage girl who wakes up in the morning and discovers that she has her period. We all know the symptoms that go along with that. At the minute, that girl does not have the right to go into school in a pair of trousers, if the school does not say that it is OK to do so, rather than having to wear a skirt and tights or whatever it might be. What impact might that have on that teenage girl?

Professor O'Neill: Some 53% of teenage girls have mental health difficulties. Anxiety about bodies and everything that goes with menstruation is part of that. Women will probably know how uncomfortable it can be and how sweaty you get in tights and all the rest. It is just another barrier to getting them into school and getting them happy and learning. These things can make a difference to whether a child says to you, "I am not going to go in today". Many parents know the feeling of their child saying, "I really do not want to go". How teenagers look is such a huge part of their life, and it is very personal and sensitive. They do not always want to talk to you about it. Any choice or flexibility that you can give them will get them into school so that they can get on with the business of education, which, I realise, is what it has to be about. You want to take away those barriers.

I also appreciate that a lot of people will not want to wear trousers — that is their choice — but it is just about having that extra level of choice. The upskirting thing is also a real problem. We have girls now, including my own daughter, in all these layers of clothes; they wear skirts on top of shorts. It would be great to have more choice. The pupils want choice. It is such a simple, easy thing that you can do to make life easier for children that I do not know why you would not do it. Most schools that I am aware of already do it.

I have also seen examples of schools that will not allow kids to take off their jumper when they are too hot, or where they have to wear coats rather than raincoats. All that stuff just makes life more unpleasant. As adults, we would not stand for it if we were told that we could not wear clothes to match the environment or the weather or to make us feel comfortable. It is about being trauma-informed. For a child with a sensory issue, a neurodivergent child or an autistic person, this can be a real problem and really impact on their ability to focus and concentrate.

Mrs Mason: Everything that you said is really important. Those are all things that we as a Committee heard time and time again from witnesses, and we tabled amendments on them.

Do you believe that they should have been included? I take from what you said that you think they should. Have you had an opportunity to engage with the Minister about this since then?

Professor O'Neill: No. These things have come up in the last couple of weeks, so I have not had a chance to do that. Also, I need to choose which are the key issues that will make a difference. I thought that the Uniforms Bill was going to be really positive. It was a no-brainer for me. However, I just do not understand the approach; there are simple things that they do in other places. I just do not get it at all. Again, it just seems cruel and is not trauma-informed in any sense.

Mrs Mason: Thank you. Just leading on from that, you mentioned something about barriers to getting children to school. I have recently been engaging with parents and children who are facing emotionally based school non-attendance — I think that that is what it is called now — rather than "school avoidance". I will be perfectly honest: I was probably naive when I went into the meeting with those guys. I did not expect the level of despair that there was amongst those parents and children.

I have been doing a bit of back and forth with the Department and the EA on this. One of the letters that the Minister wrote in reply stated:

Now, that was deeply upsetting for those parents and children to read. Those children have been traumatised, following months and years of their needs not being met. Do you agree with that statement, or do you think that exceptional teaching arrangements should be made for these children?

Professor O'Neill: This is really difficult. I am not sure what evidence the Minister refers to. Certainly, if a child cannot come to school and you cannot educate them, what are you supposed to do? The child will not get an education. If it is too distressing — parents know when their child is distressed — you are not going to put your child in that environment. You have got to try to do something else. What is the alternative there? However, I get that, if you normalise this and say, "This is OK for you —".

I grapple with this myself, as a parent. If you keep the child off for whatever reason, they will use that reason on the days that they do not want to go to school or feel that it is too much. The answer is always to provide alternatives and choice, and to work with the school to get that child in and make that environment, not stress free, but to reduce the stress in whatever way you can. I can give you loads of examples of what schools do in practice to manage this with children. It is better for that child to be in school, but you never want to cause too much distress for that child because you are going to have a far bigger problem on your hands than a child who is not going to go to school. The child's health will be impacted in a way that is harder to resolve.

It is a very delicate, sensitive thing, and each child is unique. I even take issue with the idea of emotionally based school avoidance. This is about distress: we are talking about a mental health issue. To call it "emotional" minimises that. When you talk to parents, you realise how significant it is. No parent wants their child to be at home. We prefer children to be in school, and parents want that. It is about working with that child and creating an environment that is helpful.

Neurodiversity affirmative practices in schools go a long way there. We see trauma-informed practices in school. We can see that that changes everything. There is a trauma-informed schools project — the attach programme (TAP), I think it is called. Once schools get that, they start to change things, the children come in and everyone is happier. Everybody learns.

Mrs Mason: You hit the nail on the head, there. Some schools are doing things brilliantly —

Professor O'Neill: Many, maybe most of them, yes.

Mrs Mason: Yes. They just need the guidance and support mechanisms to support these children in the best way that they can.

Mr Baker: Siobhán, thank you so much. You touched on the subject of our trans young people and the stigmatisation that they feel at the minute. It has gotten very much worse over the past number of years. I think that what the Minister did was reckless. I would like to hear your view on it: was the guidance that he set reckless and dangerous?

Professor O'Neill: I have it in my briefing. Aspects of it are really concerning, such as saying that teachers should not be compelled to use a child's pronouns. Gender-divergent children say that that is traumatic and distressing for them. That is harmful. There should always be respect for people's identities. Most teachers, as is always the case, will do that. That bit is really unnecessary. It is nearly saying that it is OK to do that. I find that really difficult.

Mr Baker: We sometimes hear that rhetoric in the Chamber from politicians who want to know the definition of a woman. They say that an awful lot. From a mental health perspective, how dangerous is it to send out that message to our young people who are trans, which is the group with the highest suicide rates? We have to be careful with our language.

Professor O'Neill: You are targeting a person's identity and saying that they are not who they say they are or that they do not have a right to be themselves. That is how young people perceive that. That is really damaging. They hear, "We do not want you here. You are not you. We will call you something that you are not". I do not know whether any of us have ever been misgendered, but it really hurts. It is deeply personal, and we should all be very careful. When we address each other, we are very careful, and we do not want to cause offence.

Mr Baker: In your role, have you challenged the Minister on that decision? We are leaders when we stand up in the Chamber to challenge those who keep doing it, because they are putting a massive target on the back of our young people.

Professor O'Neill: Yes. Seeing that stuff being played out in the Chamber is not only worrying but embarrassing in a sense. It is the culture wars thing. You often feel that really vulnerable young people are the collateral damage. From speaking to them, I know that we are talking about people who often want to disappear. They just want to live their lives. They are not putting themselves out there. It is scary. They are very vulnerable to suicidal thoughts. It is a very delicate subject. They are exploring their identity, and they need support so that they can get on with their education. Often, if a setting is really unsafe for them, they do not want to come into school. When you speak to parents, you see that they are at their wits' end.

Mr Baker: You mentioned there being an unsafe environment. Are we now seeing a knock-on effect? Last time, we did not really touch on racism, but has that escalated in the past number of months? In the past year, we have seen a rise in that, and there is a fear of going to school among our newcomer children and families. Again, there is rhetoric that comes from some quarters around "legitimate concerns". In my constituency, I am starting to see that fear among people who are living there and seeing that rhetoric online. We saw this week how Trump stigmatised women and children with autism this week. Does that throw up concern for you as well? Is it all starting to come together?

Professor O'Neill: It merges. It is the idea of othering and the idea that we need a group to target. Our society has huge inequalities between a lot of people. You can see the deprivation and the difference in suicide rates. The figure that I am most familiar with is that suicide rates can be three times higher in the most deprived areas. There is that inequality. People are stretched, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and we are always looking for somebody to blame. That happens, and a group is then targeted when people say that it is responsible. We are fed a lot of information through social media and its algorithms. Autistic people can be targeted when people say, "We want to prevent that". We welcome autistic people. They have a lot to contribute. It is normal. Othering is a problem, and we are very good at it in a divided society like Northern Ireland. It is very worrying.

Mr Baker: It is about looking for the solution to that. It is enmeshed in a whole lot of massive cultural issues, but we do not have funding. The Minister decided not to fund counselling in primary schools. Should that be reviewed? Should we look at putting that support in place at an earlier age in our schools? Education will be key to all of that, but it is about supporting our young people through the challenges that they have.

Professor O'Neill: The best way to approach it is through social and emotional learning. That is where we talk about relationships and how we connect with other people. We are doing some work in the OUR Generation project around social identity complexity, where we realise that we have different identities and we are part of multiple groups. Such groups can give us protection, and we feel a lot safer in those contexts.

There are a lot of universal interventions that really work. Young people certainly need one-to-one support, however, and the HOPE counselling service is available through the Education Authority. In primary school, one-to-one therapeutic support usually means play therapy and family therapy, which are more the remit of the health service, because we are talking about children with mental health difficulties. Supports are in place in education, but maybe there is not enough of that support. The social and emotional learning element will make the most difference, however, along with resources for schools generally so that they have enough teachers for them to feel safe and not under pressure in the classroom.

Mr Baker: Between Education and Health, are you seeing an improvement, with better outworkings for our young people?

Professor O'Neill: I have sat in awards ceremonies and talked to the principals of schools that have gone through the Being Well Doing Well programme. The difference, which comes from that whole-school approach, is unbelievable. Schools send parents a questionnaire, and people identify things that could be easily shifted to make life better.

Mr Baker: Is that across the board, though?

Professor O'Neill: It is only in the schools that have the programme. Schools need to want it and to be prepared to shift and, almost, change their view of education, but there definitely are benefits.

Mr Baker: I mean in the general population —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Is that another question, Danny? Thanks.

Mr Baker: Sorry.

Professor O'Neill: It will be eventually. If enough schools have the programme, you will be able to track the changes. There is evidence from other countries. We have a lot of social problems that contribute to poor mental health, however, and school is not where they will all be solved, but it is a really good place to start to target some of the key differences and create a more level playing field for the children.

Mr Baker: May I have one more?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): If it is a very quick one.

Mr Baker: It is. Some of our young people who are part of the mobile phone pilot — the pouches — feel anxious about that. Have you picked up on that anxiety?

Professor O'Neill: A quick answer, please, Siobhán.

Professor O'Neill: Yes. Most of our young people have mobile phones. The evidence on 11-year-olds is that those who do not have a mobile phone have worse mental health. Having access to the internet every day is a positive thing. However, if you are on social media too much, your well-being goes down, so there is a correlation between length of time spent on social media and mental health. Having a phone is neither here nor there. Young people all have phones, whether we like it or not. Those with good mental health have phones but spend less time on social media because they are doing other stuff. It is about inequality.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Siobhán, for your time today; I appreciate it. Danny was reading my information, I think, because he asked all my questions, but I will —.

Mr Baker: My eyesight must be really good.

Mrs Guy: I am only joking. I will go back to the matter of counselling in primary schools. A special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) group that I met recently expressed their desperation to have that support back into schools. I acknowledge that some great work goes on in schools. We found that, in the absence of funded provision from Health and Education, schools paid for it themselves, so great is the need and so impactful are the interventions. Have you liaised with the Health Minister and the Education Minister to try to get that restored? Has there been any progress on that?

Professor O'Neill: Yes. The Department of Health's mental health strategy contains early intervention and prevention actions that could be taken through schools. One problem is that we do not have enough trained specialist young people's counsellors, so, when Healthy Happy Minds was delivered in schools, there was difficulty in sourcing counsellors with the right qualifications, and the criteria had to be widened. All those things are relevant to the discussion, but, yes, I call for the full implementation of the mental health strategy, particularly the early intervention and prevention actions that would cover schools, and for the expansion of the framework.

A couple of programmes, such as REACH, provide one-to-one and group support. We are talking mostly about support for young people who have anxiety and for parents who manage primary-school children's anxiety. A lot of that can be done in groups, and it is probably better to do it at an early stage. Education should not pay for all of it, because it should come through the mental health strategy. There is a big focus on counselling. Schools are desperate, and, when they see kids who cannot get one-to-one support, that is a real problem, because those children miss years. The HOPE therapy counselling service seems to be going well, however.

Do you want to talk about that, Nicole? Are there waiting lists for it?

Dr Nicole Bond (Office of the Mental Health Champion): It has replaced the Independent Counselling Service for Schools (ICSS). For primary schools in particular, there is a DOH consultation on children and young people's mental health. If the proposals, as presented, are realised, they should, hopefully, tie into Education as well.

For parents of younger children who think that the child has additional needs and who may be going through the assessment process for ASD, ADHD or whatever sensory issue the child may have — if the child has additional educational needs, there is that added pressure — counselling can be great in those circumstances and to talk families through it. However, it may not be indicative of a clinical mental illness or the need for that kind of support past those difficult periods.

What would help would be the streamlining of the assessment and criteria for additional supports that, as we know, families can wait years for. During that time, they do not where they can go for support. They turn to their school and say, "What can you do? Can you put something in now without a statement?", and all those frustrations build.

The consultation is very new, but the framework that DOH will consider is about how all that dovetails and how to streamline services for young people in order to create a wraparound service for all those health needs that can then link in with every other sector, including the community and voluntary (C&V) sector and education. It is about seeing the young person as a whole person. Education makes up a part of that, as does health and their community, and their family is a big part of it. We have to stop treating them as five separate people. They are taken from one environment to another by the person who is either their carer or parent. We have to see the services around them in the same capacity and look at how they come together. Education and increased counselling in schools may be one solution, but if you can sort out all those other blockages in additional specialised support, you will see the demand drop a bit.

Mrs Guy: It is about collaborative working. It is one child; how do all the services interact?

Professor O'Neill: It should be led by needs rather than whether there is a diagnosis. There is this whole idea that you need a diagnosis before you can get support, but it should be about looking at what a child's unique needs are.

Mrs Guy: I will move on to older children because we have talked about primary-school children. You have talked about misogyny and the toxic influences on young men. How important is pastoral care and modelling positive behaviour in school in dealing with that issue? I know that both boys and girls have a requirement for that kind of pastoral care in different ways, but there seems to be a particular issue with young men at the minute. What is your sense of that?

Professor O'Neill: That is really important. Again, it is about taking a whole-school approach, with the school setting out the behaviour that it expects of pupils and how they should behave with one another. I hear stories about young people who do not know about consent. They really do not realise that what they are doing is inappropriate, because nobody has ever told them, or they have never been taught about it. They get information from pornography about what sexual relationships look like, and that is a real problem. We need education about relationships in our schools as well. The whole-school approach, the school environment, positive behaviour and the care that we provide are all really important.

The survey of young people's social media and digital use shows that there is information about online safety, and most young people are getting that. If you had relationships education for all young people alongside that, it would be really good. Again, a lot of schools are doing that. They realise that that is important, and they are already doing it. I can think of some great examples of boys' schools that do a really good job on that. It really depends. However, it is not getting to all our children. Then terrible things happen, and you wonder, "Why? How can that be?".

Mrs Guy: Can I squeeze in one very quick question?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): A quick one.

Mrs Guy: You referenced the removal of the guidance on transgender kids and your concerns about that, and you spoke publicly about it. Did you get any feedback from the Minister to allay your concerns?

Professor O'Neill: No, not at all. I am not the only person who said that. Many groups, including teachers' groups, have expressed concern. They have said that they are already doing so much and that, if they were to follow the guidelines, it would result in a breach of privacy for young people who have transitioned.

There are all sorts of implications that I would not even have thought through, but the people working on the ground to support young people know what it looks like.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for speaking out on it. It is a serious issue. It is not an amusing issue and it is not funny, so I am glad to hear you speak about it in a serious way that takes those kids seriously.

Professor O'Neill: It is really serious. Thank you.

Mr Burrows: Thanks, Siobhán. I will get straight into it, because time is tight. You said that access to a mobile phone decreases mental health risks in schools.

Professor O'Neill: That is not quite it. The children who did not have access to the internet, which, for most children, is accessed through a mobile pone, had the poorest mental health. That is what came out of the screens survey or whatever it was. That figure is for 11-year-olds. For 16-year-olds, less access to social media is associated with better mental health, for sure, so I am not saying that it is a good thing, Jon.

Mr Burrows: Having access to a mobile phone during school time, logically, would increase the risk of upskirting in schools.

Professor O'Neill: If that that happened, it could —

Mr Burrows: You mentioned that upskirting is a concern. Upskirting is done with mobile phones. Logically, therefore, children having access to their mobile phones increases the risk of upskirting.

Professor O'Neill: Possibly, yes.

Mr Burrows: By extension, yes.

On trans and LGBT issues, you mentioned alleged bullying by teachers. It has not been investigated, but —

Professor O'Neill: I have been very careful about how I have phrased that, Jon.

Mr Burrows: Yes, 100%. To make sure that teachers do not engage in that behaviour and that the culture is right so that pupils can raise issues, school inspection is vital; it is a vital part of ensuring that there is a proper culture and proper safeguarding. Do you think that disruption to school inspections increases or decreases the risk of bullying of LGBT and trans people?

Professor O'Neill: I do not know whether that made any difference, to be honest. Schools tend to take bullying very seriously and have bullying policies.

Mr Burrows: You said that teachers are allegedly involved in it, according to —

Professor O'Neill: Oh, the teachers. Sorry. OK. I have no data on that, Jon. I do not know.

Mr Burrows: What is your professional assessment? If a teacher is bullying, even if inadvertently, and there is no inspector in the school, does that increase or decrease the risk of there being a bullying culture?

Professor O'Neill: It could increase it, but I have to say that I that I am not sure.

Mr Burrows: Thanks. That is fine. Otherwise we might as well ban inspections and save a lot of money.

I am going through these questions in quite a business-like way because we are tight for time.

Professor O'Neill: That is fine; do not worry.

Mr Burrows: I will ask about uniforms and then about the use of force. Do school uniforms, per se, take a lot of pressure away from pupils, in the sense that they do not have to choose their outfits? When they have to do that, there are issues with money and with who can afford what.

Professor O'Neill: I believe that it does. School uniform can be a leveller. It is certainly easier for parents in the morning when there is just a uniform to put on. I totally accept that. There is, however, an alternative viewpoint, held by some people, that it is better to —

Mr Burrows: What is your view, as an expert?

Professor O'Neill: My view is that it is probably a good thing.

Mr Burrows: That is useful.

You said that girls should be able to wear trousers and that no girl should be exposed to the risk of upskirting. Are you saying, therefore, that there are uniforms in Northern Ireland that, in themselves, create a risk of upskirting taking place? I am not sure of the link between that and choice.

Professor O'Neill: I do not know, honestly. Are you saying that having a skirt at all is a problem?

Mr Burrows: I do not think that; I am just trying to understand the link between upskirting and a choice that means that they do not have to wear skirts.

Professor O'Neill: It may not be an issue in all schools, but girls certainly report it as being a concern. They wear items under their skirts: that is one thing that they do to prevent it. Yes, girls report it. It is a problem. In our day, it was the pulling up of skirts.

Mr Burrows: It is shocking.

Professor O'Neill: The issue has always been there. It is not the phone that causes it; it is misogyny that causes it, if you know what I mean, Jon.

Mr Burrows: That issue needs to be dealt with exemplarily. We need to send the message that it is a total violation.

I was slightly confused when you said that some force, such as restraint, is being used as punishment. That is unlawful, as far as I understand. You cannot use force. Are you saying that people are using force as a punishment as opposed to using it to prevent the child from injuring themselves or someone else? The latter would be —

Professor O'Neill: I am saying that the legislation currently permits the use of restraint and seclusion for discipline. The legislation allows it, and we have highlighted — I do not have the letter here — the contradictory nature of that.

Mr Burrows: I am not talking about seclusion, or about someone being told, "You're going to go next door"; you are saying that someone can be physically restrained as a form of discipline. It is not to uphold discipline, in the sense of the order of the class and preventing them injuring someone; you are saying that, according to the current legislation, it can be used purely as a punishment.

Dr Bond: Article 4(1)(a) and article 4(1)(b) cover the use of restraint in the case of an emergency, such as if a child is at risk to themselves, another child or a staff member. Those emerging cases are protected by article 4(1)(a) and article 4(1)(b). Article 4(1)(c) is about the use of restraint to maintain good order and discipline. One of the recommendations of DE's 2022 review of the legislation was that article 4(1)(c) be repealed because it is too ambiguous and schools would have a defence if they did —. The Committee has heard —

Mr Burrows: Corporal punishment is unlawful.

Dr Bond: Yes, and that came up. It was in the letter that we wrote to the Minister. They define "corporal punishment" as using force to maintain order if another measure is not emergent. Do not quote me on the exact wording, but it very much aligned with article 4(1)(c). A report came out in 2022, and the Education Minister at the time stated that the recommendation to repeal article 4(1)(c) would be upheld. Now, however, that repeal is up for debate.

Mr Burrows: So, it is a tidying-up exercise. You are not saying that schools are currently using restraint and force as a punishment. You are not saying that that is happening.

Dr Bond: No, there is —

Mr Burrows: If that were happening, you would be raising that, because that could not sit —

Dr Bond: Yes. The Committee has heard of instances where schools have misused it, and there have been investigations and reviews, as there should be. The group that we sit on asked the Department for examples of why that change could not be invoked. Other members of that group withdrew their membership, some quite publicly, because they could not get the assurance that that repeal, as had been promised, would actually happen. That is the sticking point. It is not that we believe that schools are using it; we just do not understand why, when a report in 2022 said that it is no longer needed, the ambiguity is there.

Mr Burrows: That clarifies my thinking.

The final one is this: you said that teachers should reflect the identity of the pupil. Is there any limit to that? For example, just for absolute clarity, could a pupil change their chosen pronouns during a class and say, "Look, I now wish to change"? Is there a limit to that? Does it have to relate to gender, or could it be anything that you perceive yourself as? In practical terms, what does it mean for the teacher if a child says, "I want to identify today as —"? I do not want to make it flippant and say "animals", but what are the limits to that? I ask that in order to give our teachers some clarity and guidance.

Professor O'Neill: I take your question in good faith. Usually, a lot of work will be done between the school and the family, and a decision will be made that, at a particular point, the pronouns will change. It does not happen in the course of a day or without prior discussion. It is incredibly delicate and sensitive. The peers are often very supportive. The school will cooperate with what is happening at home, in collaboration with health services as well.

Mr Burrows: Just to finalise it, then —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): A quick one, Jon, please.

Mr Burrows: Yes. People have different views on this, but you are certainly not saying that a pupil can, at any moment in time, simply say, "I have to be addressed by this" and their teacher has to follow suit. There has to be, in your view, some kind of governance, regulation or discussions around that; it is not just a fleeting thing that can change three or four times a day.

Professor O'Neill: We are talking about respect between people and using the person's chosen name. Some people change their forename — they shorten it or whatever — and that becomes the name that is used. It is in that context, Jon.

Mr Burrows: It is about clarity for teachers. These things have to be operationalised at some point, and it is useful to try to understand —

Professor O'Neill: When that sort of scenario happens, teachers manage it very sensitively and delicately.

Mr Burrows: I understand that, yes.

Professor O'Neill: It is done in the best interests of the child and out of respect for that child's choices.

Mr Burrows: You have answered my questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): I will go back to restraint and seclusion. One of the examples that we heard in the Committee was of a young boy with autism who was in a mainstream class. He was stimming — you know, the rapid hand movement that some autistic kids use when they feel anxiety or stress. His hands were strapped to the chair with the straps of his school bag on the basis of good order and discipline, because he was distracting other pupils in the class. That was the reason that was given for restraining him, but, to the child and the parents, it felt very much like punishment. Would you like to comment on that?

Professor O'Neill: It is sometimes very difficult to know why things happen and whether they are done as punishment or to maintain discipline in the class or whatever. We need legal clarity that some things are just unacceptable and that difficult and challenging behaviour, and behaviour generally, needs to be managed in a particular way. There is lots of evidence about the best way to do that. That is the kind of spirit in which we are working with that group to achieve guidance that is helpful for teachers. Teachers can get very stressed in those situations, and they have very few tools open to them. It is very difficult to manage when a child's behaviour is distracting. However, that is a coping strategy for the child, and that child has the right to get their education in that class. That needs to be acknowledged. The legal framework needs to be clear so that there is no doubt about what is and is not acceptable.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Of course, there could be better training for teachers as well.

Professor O'Neill: Yes, through a neurodiversity lens. An understanding of what stimming is would have changed everything there, no doubt.

Mr Brooks: I do not plan to take a lot of time asking questions on this first matter, because we could go round in circles on the basis of Committee members having different views on it — and I want to acknowledge that. We have had talk of culture wars and how it has been addressed in the Chamber. Michelle, with due respect, looked at me when she said that these are not humorous issues. I do not think that many people think that they are humorous issues. There is a divergence of opinion on these issues, and that is not just in this room or in the Chamber; it is across the globe. We have seen societies divided on these issues.

There is no doubt that parents of pupils who have challenges around gender are concerned; I do not doubt that for a second. However, our party also understands that a lot of parents out there have concerns about what their children may learn in school and about how safe single-sex spaces in schools are. Whilst this is very rare — I am not overblowing it — there are also concerns about whether competitive sports teams will be playing against people of the same sex. All those things are swirling around and causing big debates in society. I do not think that we should minimise it and say that some people just stand on their soapbox to try to blow the issues up. These issues are being debated across the Western World. We have different views on it, and there has to be realisation of that.

In the past — I hope that you will accept this — schools have not always been particularly welcoming places to people from a faith background or those who hold conservative views. I have spoken to families and teachers who find that staffrooms and other places are largely more liberal. That is fine, but it is sometimes difficult to be in those places as a conservative. It is not wrong to stand over and recognise the fact that there are different views out there.

I will move on to other issues. You can comment on that if you wish, but I do not think that there is an awful lot of sense in continuing down that road. We have had our relationships and sexuality education (RSE) inquiry and so on.

Professor O'Neill: If a child feels that they are being bullied in school because of their faith, that is a really important issue that I need to be aware of.

Mr Brooks: Yes. Bullying is wrong.

Professor O'Neill: We need to be asking that question. I am really sad to hear that. Most of our schools have an element of religion. A lot of our schools are faith schools, essentially. It is really worrying.

Mr Brooks: Essentially, but the ethos is very soft and, quite often, is not necessarily reflected in classes. Even for my generation, it was not reflected hugely in our classes. I guess that different people have different experiences.

Professor O'Neill: I would not want any child to feel unsafe or bullied.

Mr Brooks: Bullying is wrong, whatever the reasoning behind it. That is absolutely accepted.

Professor O'Neill: It can be inadvertent. Bullying is wrong, but it is about how we define it, what it looks like and how we make people feel safe and valued in the school setting. Previously, we talked about debates in schools around transgender issues and LGBT issues that have left children feeling very vulnerable, marginalised and questioning their right to exist. That is where we really need to look at it.

Mr Brooks: We cannot impose gender ideology on children as if they have to accept that that is just the way that it is. I do not want to go down this route, but many of us hold to the idea that there are two sexes, and that is it — there is not a spectrum of genders. I hold to that, but I understand that other people here do not. I do not think that it is necessarily helpful to continue down this line. We have both expressed our views on it.

Professor O'Neill: All I will say, just to close it off, is that there are gender-divergent young people in our schools. That is the reality. I do not think that —

Mr Brooks: I understand some of the issues around that. I do not necessarily think that we would always define it in the same way. That is fine.

You talked about neurodiversity and the more inclusive curriculum. This is a genuine question. It seems to me that there are different views, even within SEN families and the SEN community, on the idea of specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS). What does adapting mainstream education for neurodiversity look like in practice? I have talked to families who do not believe that their child could ever deal with that kind of education, but maybe that is because of where they are on the spectrum. I am interested to know what kind of changes you think would make that possible.

Professor O'Neill: I agree with you on that. Some children's needs are such that an alternative setting is needed. However, if you think about ADHD and autistic children, you are talking about maybe 28%.

Mr Brooks: Yes, the more moderate end.

Professor O'Neill: We just need more consideration. Some of the examples that I give include having a sensory environment in a classroom because of some children's need for stimming in order to feel safe and to regulate their emotional responses. A lot of schools now have nurture rooms and sensory rooms that children can use. That is all good practice. A lot of schools allow for fidget toys and transitionary objects that help children to feel safe. It is about allowing all that in schools and prioritising relationships in schools, so that teachers are better tuned in to the needs of children and really listen.

Some children will not do well in a classroom environment and need a bit of extra support. That is the kind of thing that we are talking about. Each situation is unique. It is about understanding what the regulation looks like for an autistic child or for somebody with ADHD, and about knowing that, frequently, those co-occur. It is about being really sensitive to the needs of the child in front of you.

Mr Brooks: So, it is about the more moderate end of the spectrum. There is an acceptance that there will be people who have difficulties such that —

Professor O'Neill: That is the way that we are moving, but I am not a neurodiversity expert.

Mr Brooks: It is just that, sometimes, when I hear that, I feel that there is almost an attitude that we can change the world to fit everybody, and that will make everything OK. I might be picking that up wrong, but you have given me the reassurance that I was seeking.

Professor O'Neill: I totally get it. We cannot cater to everybody's needs.

Mr Brooks: I know that I am running over time —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Final question. You are well over time, David.

Mr Brooks: You said that you are concerned about the inclusion of employability in the review. Will you expand on those concerns?

Professor O'Neill: The employability bit is really good: it is all about skills, such as digital skills. My concern is about it being alongside mental health — or "Employability and Wellbeing", as it is in the review. Employability is separate. The Department of Education recognises that. If you look at the curriculum in other regions and other countries, you will see that they have well-being separate from employability. If it is done properly, the two could be together in the same subject, but they are very different. You are teaching children about their emotions, emotional regulation, how to look after themselves and how to manage their relationships. Employability builds on that, but there are specific employability skills that should not be on the well-being side. It is a bit of an odd coupling.

Mr Brooks: It is about the nuances of it. I understand that.

Professor O'Neill: That is all. There are no real concerns about that. I like what is happening under TransformED. The curriculum review is really good, and the people involved in it are good.

Mr Brooks: It was just that you said, in your presentation, that you have some concerns around that, but I understand what you are saying.

Professor O'Neill: The concern is about putting employability and well-being together. Will one be diluted? Will one be secondary to the other? It is all that sort of stuff.

Mr Brooks: OK.

Professor O'Neill: We will be involved in the next stage of the review, however, so I hope that it will be all right.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thanks, Siobhán and Nicole. That was very useful and informative. Will you keep the Committee abreast of your communications with the Minister and on whether there is progress on any of the requests that you have made of him?

Professor O'Neill: Yes. Equally, if the Committee is interested in addressing any of the issues that I raised, I will be happy to engage further and bring in other experts or whatever so that we can tackle some of the issues.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Absolutely. Thank you for that.

Professor O'Neill: Thank you.