Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are really delighted to have with us today Dorothy Murray, who is representing SEN Reform NI, and Fiona Cole, who is doing so in a voluntary capacity. For members who are not aware — I am sure that the witnesses can provide a bit of background — SEN Reform NI is a special educational needs (SEN) support and lobby group, representing the voices of parents in relation to special educational needs provision in Northern Ireland. You are both welcome here today. We are really delighted that you have given your time to present to Committee. All members were clear at the outset of the inquiry that hearing from parents was absolutely critical to the evidence that we would gather. We need to understand the reality of parental experience of the system so that we can compare it to the information that we hear from the Education Authority (EA) and Department.

I am happy to hand over to you at this stage. Your briefing paper was concise and clear, but, if you have any opening remarks or a presentation that you wish to run through, I ask for that to be up to 10 minutes. We will then move to questions and answers. We will aim to keep each enquiry from each member to five minutes, so bear that in mind in when it comes to how long you take to answer the questions, so that we can get round every member. We have two members joining us virtually. You will not be able to see them in the room at the moment.

Over to you.

Ms Dorothy Murray (SEN Reform NI): Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak with you all today. My name is Dorothy Murray, and I am here alongside Fiona Cole, as parent representative with SEN Reform NI. We are a voluntary, parent-led group. Since June 2023, when we formed, we have been working to advocate and lobby for equity of access to education for children with special educational needs and disabilities in Northern Ireland. We began as a few parents facing our own personal challenges, navigating the SEN system. Since then, the group has grown to represent almost 2,000 families across Northern Ireland. In June 2025, in partnership with Caleb's Cause NI, we published our second annual report, drawing on 317 responses from families. Those responses provide a clear and sobering picture of the continuing challenges in SEN education. Our mission is simple: to ensure that every child with SEN has their right to a quality education upheld without the families having to fight endlessly for it.

We acknowledge the progress made. Parents welcome the Department of Education's end-to-end review of SEN, the Education Authority's work on its transformation programme and the prioritisation of SEN in the Programme for Government. Those are positive commitments. However, families tell us that those commitments are not yet felt in daily life. While strategies exist, delivery has not caught up with promise. In our 2025 survey, 77% of parents said that their child did not have the same opportunity to learn as their non-SEN peers: that is, 3 out of 4 families believe that the system is structurally inequitable. As one parent told us:

The first major issue is school placement. Parents and political representatives are by now familiar with the yearly crisis. From our survey, only 61% of parents felt that their child's placement met their needs: a decline from the previous year. Placements are too often confirmed at the last minute, creating what parents describe as "an annual scramble". Families cannot plan, and children are left anxious. Some children still had no placement at the start of term. Others were offered places in schools where no classroom was ready and no start date had been provided. That is unimaginable for children in mainstream schools, yet SEN children are routinely placed in that position. It is not equity; it is a breach of duty. For children who are unable to start school at the same time as their peers, nothing is put in place by way of education during the wait, and the children miss out on vital time in their education. As well as that, we now see more and more children unable to attend school due to the settings being unsuitable for them, which causes the children to become anxious and stressed.

We understand that the EA is introducing a new strategy to recognise the children on the register, but we already have article 86 of the Education (Northern Ireland ) Order 1998, whereby the EA:

Failing to do so goes against the law. Parents ask a fair question: if non-SEN children know their placement in April, why must SEN families wait until August or even later?

We then have the issue of specialist provisions that have been funded by the EA. They have been staffed and set up ready to welcome children and equipped with a wealth of knowledge and experience, yet, to this day, they sit empty, with no children allocated to attend. Why do we have children with no placement but we have several specialist provisions ready and waiting? Why is the EA offering mainstream settings with a one-to-one instead when those placements are available?

The second theme is trust. Parents recognise the effort in the Department and the EA, but the trust is badly broken. In our survey, 68% rated communication with the EA as "poor" or "very poor". Families describe being ignored, passed from one officer to another and left in the dark for months. Too many parents feel that their children are treated as numbers on a spreadsheet rather than as individuals. In some cases, children are placed in schools that are unwilling to accept them. For any parent, the idea of sending your child to a school that does not want them is heartbreaking. Belonging is not a luxury; it is fundamental to education.

From listening to the EA in previous evidence sessions with you, the Committee, we have heard numerous times that their decisions are child-centred and based, first and foremost, on the needs of the children. Parents and carers from whom we have heard feel anxious about the future and are unsure that decisions are based on children's needs first. For example, the criteria for a placement in a special school were previously far-ranging: moderate learning difficulty, behavioural issues and severe learning difficulties. However, parents tell us that they have been told by the EA that that has changed. It appears to parents that there is a lack of transparency in relation to the criteria for access to a special school placement to only children with profound needs.

The EA has said that it wants to reduce the number of statements being awarded to children, as it hopes that they will get the interventions needed before that stage. A statement is a legal document that requires the EA to uphold its part by law. Around 96% to 97% of parental referrals for statements are declined. Parents then have to appeal and fight, despite having the lived experience with the child and knowing the child best. Parents feel that the decisions that are being made by the EA are stripping the children of their legal rights, and the criteria seem to change constantly, again to the detriment of the children, not to better them or their education.

The third issue relates to concerns about specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS). Parents told us that some SPiMS classrooms were underresourced and inadequately equipped, with little evidence of long-term planning for expansion. Training of staff is inconsistent. Parents want to know who is delivering that training and whether it is neuro-affirming. Recruitment difficulties mean that classroom assistants without SEN experience are often hired. Parents tell us that it was not that long ago that the EA wanted to cut down the number of classroom assistants, but now it is undertaking a huge recruitment drive for classroom assistants and one-to-one assistance, as more children are forced into a mainstream setting. That is not the correct place for them to thrive. We have heard in recent sessions that the EA feels that parents believe that having a one-to-one assistant is the gold standard: that could not be further from the truth. Parents push for a one-to-one for their children in mainstream settings because it is the only way that, they feel, they can ensure their safety, as the mainstream setting is not the correct place for them.

More and more children with complex needs are being placed in mainstream schools, and with the normality being one teacher and one assistant per classroom, they cannot guarantee the safety of all children, especially those with SEN. Most important, many children's statements include therapy support, including occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and nursing, linked to health services. In special schools, there is a clearer pathway, but there is no consistency in SPiMS, and parents feel that there are some SPiMS where children are not receiving the necessary therapies. What then happens to the children once they are of school-leaving age and have not received appropriate education to get them to their optimum potential? Parents are asking, "What is the role of Health in the new local impact teams (LITs)?" Without proper integration, children will be placed in settings where their legal entitlements cannot be delivered.

The fourth issue and one of the most urgent and of most concern is school transport. Every August, parents wait anxiously to learn how their child will travel to school. Many do not know who will pick their child up until days before term, if at all. That uncertainty makes childcare and employment almost impossible to manage. For children with SEN, who rely on routine and familiar adults, the disruption is devastating. Safety concerns are equally serious. Parents report that children are being transported without legally required car seats, and subcontractor vetting remains unclear. The EA assures families that private contractors are checked, but the position with subcontractors is much less transparent. We would like the EA to provide information on its policies regarding the safeguarding of transport and our children, especially for the subcontractors. We have heard reports from parents that AccessNI applications have come back with convictions flagged, but the person is still able to transport some of our most vulnerable children. Parents need clarity and more transparency regarding the safety of their children. Parents would also like to know who the responsibility lies with if an incident happens and the child has not got the correct car seat or if the driver has convictions. Again, driving laws are not being adhered to in relation to the car seats.

Looking ahead, transitions are another crisis point. The code of practice states that planning should begin at 14, yet, in our survey, only 25% of parents of 14- to 19-year-olds had seen a transition plan. Even more concerning, 64% of parents did not know that the child statement ends at 19. Families describe that as "falling off a cliff". On post-19 provisions, the findings are stark: 96% of parents want legislation to protect education and support after the age of 19; 98% believe that government should be legally accountable; and 74% rated care in post-19 provision as one out of 10. Unlike England and Wales, where education, health and care plans can extend to the age of 25 , Northern Ireland offers no statutory protection. That leaves young people abandoned at the very stage where structure and opportunity are most needed.

Finally, I must highlight the emotional toll. The words used by parents in our survey were stark: "soul-destroying", "traumatising", "gaslighting" and "dehumanising", and 81% of parents described the statementing process in negative terms that were worse than in 2024. Parents spoke of giving up work, suffering deteriorating mental health and feeling forced into legal action simply to secure what should already be their child's right. In 2025, 41% of families reported seeking legal advice or representation, which is up from 29% the year before. That is not a system of support; it is a system of battles, and the cost is borne by the families. We heard the EA, during its last evidence session, say that it is not perfect and it makes mistakes, but it is important that it learns from them so as not to make them again. Parents feel that there has been no learning, as the same mistakes are repeated every day, despite having happened numerous times previously. Since we formed in 2023, we have received serious reports of data breaches, alongside incidents with transport and children's safety, and we still, to this day, receive reports of the same incidents.

The EA's mission is;

On the basis of the evidence provided, that is not what is happening for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Parents are not asking for the impossible; they are asking for what the law already guarantees: timely, lawful statements; suitable resource placements; safe and consistent transport; cross-departmental support that recognises that health and education are inseparable; and statutory protections for young people aged 19 to 25. The Department's review of strategies shows recognition of the issues, but recognition without change is not enough. Families are asking you, as legislators, to ensure accountability and to move from reports on pilots to real, enforceable action. Every child with SEN is, first and foremost, a child with the same rights, hopes and potential as any other. We must stop treating them as afterthoughts and start treating them as priorities. After the session, we would like to provide you with some automated feedback from some of our parents, which will show you the reality of what families go through every day in trying to secure an education for their child.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Dorothy. As I said at the start, your written briefing was really clear and concise. I wish every briefing that we got an advance of a Committee session was as clear: "These are the issues, and this is what, we think, needs to happen." It certainly helps members to focus when it comes to asking questions. That was really helpful evidence. For the benefit of members, we do not have a Deputy Chair here today. Normally, I bring members after the Deputy Chair. Please, members, just start indicating through the Clerk, and we will go from there.

With regard to questions, it is really hard to know where to start. I think we all feel that with SEN, and that is the reason that we are running the inquiry. It can feel overwhelming. In fact, just around the scope of the issues and how interconnected they all are. You spoke about placements in a lot of detail, and the scramble for places. I am not going to focus on that. We have had, as I am sure you have heard from the EA in the sessions so far, clear assurances that it is very confident that it will deliver a better process this year. I am very much in the mode of watching that space. We were also very clear that the window of time to get that right is shortening rapidly, and that, at some point over the autumn, we will want to get a very clear steer that we are not heading towards that scramble again. We have had some quite clear assurances that there is progress.

I wanted to focus on what you referenced about the appropriateness of placements. Could you expand on that with regard to the sort of scenarios that parents are raising, through your forums, about what those inappropriate placements might look like, and the impact of them?

Ms Murray: Yes. We have had a lot of parents coming to us about SPiMS. We are getting feedback that some of them have worked very well; others are not up to the standard of where they should be. That obviously creates an unsuitable setting for a child and adds anxiety and stress to a child. A lot of parents come to us especially about nursery places, because many children will be given a placement with one-to-one support in a mainstream nursery while they look for specialist provision for P1. We also have a lot of parents whose children are on reduced timetables; those parents are being called day-to-day to do nappy changes, and their children are not getting the same opportunities as their peers.

I have been through that transition. My daughter had a mainstream nursery place with one-to-one support, but, unfortunately, it took most of the year for the nursery to get the one-to-one provision embedded after the interview process had happened and the AccessNI checks had been done. My daughter was on a reduced timetable for most of that year until the one-to-one came. Even when the one-to-one came, the timetable was increased by only 15-minute increments every week. I was called when my daughter needed her nappy changed. She is non-verbal and has severe learning difficulties. She got a one-to-one because there was a safety concern for her. She puts everything into her mouth, and the teachers could not guarantee me that she could be kept safe from choking hazards. That not only caused a lot of issues for my daughter, for whom it was the only option available, but impacted on the rest of the family. It impacted on my and my partner's work commitments and on my other children.

We have placements that are just not suitable. They do not meet the children's needs, even with the one-to-one support. The one-to-one whom my daughter had was absolutely amazing and could not have done enough for her, but that was not the correct setting for her at all, yet she spent a year there.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will come in there, Dorothy. That is an important point. What is your assessment of the role of specialist provisions in the education system? Do they have a role? Can they work effectively, or does that model not work?

Ms Murray: First and foremost, for them to work effectively, health has to be closely integrated. Without health, I cannot see them working at all. A lot of our children depend on speech and language therapy and occupational therapy, which is all part of their education. A setting is not suitable if children do not receive that and are on long waiting lists. You have to meet all the needs of the children in those settings. That is a big issue and a big concern for parents, because it seems to be what the future looks like.

With some SPiMS, if the staff are trained and have knowledge of SEN, the provision will be good. However, parents are telling us that staff are being brought on without experience. That will not work. There are so many factors that need to happen. All the cogs need to work together; it is not just a one-size-fits-all solution. It also depends on children's different needs. We have SPiMS for children with social and communication needs and SPiMS purely for autistic children. We have SPiMS for behavioural issues. It really depends on what a child's needs are.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is really helpful. There is concern about access to special school placements and whether there is enough capacity in the system. There is so much to cover. Hopefully, other members will get round all the issues. The interaction with health was well noted.

I want to pick up quickly on transition planning and the situation for people post-19. After 19, people are not the Education Department's responsibility. According to the evidence that you shared, only 25% of parents with whom you engage were aware of the transition planning process at all, so we can assume that that is not happening for 75%. That is borne out by the engagement that we have had with the EA. There is definitely a bigger piece around what happens post-19. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of transition planning as it currently stands for young people with SEN in the system who are looking to move beyond post-primary education?

Ms Murray: The transitions need to happen, for starters. That would be a good start. In addition, everyone needs to come together at that point. It is such a massive transition for children in general, regardless of whether they are neurodivergent, but all of the added factors and needs of a neurodivergent child mean that that is going to be tenfold. Everyone needs to come together and be a part of that discussion. Health needs to be included. All of the Departments have to work together. The voice of parents also has to be included. Parents know their children best. They cater for their every need 24/7. They need to be a part of what their children's future will look like. Every child's future will look different.

Ms Fiona Cole (SEN Reform NI): Seventy-four per cent of parents rated post-19 provision as "poor". When they were asked about the forms of post-19 provision that they would like to see, families expressed a strong interest in a range of specialist options that were child- or young person-centred. The most frequently suggested were specialist further education colleges, day placements focused on life skills rather than formal education, and more general day opportunities. There was also a desire for an ability to transition not just from education to health settings. For children who have aspirations of employment, that transition setting has to work in tandem with the post-19 opportunities. We really want to see that. If the disability strategy that has just been launched by the Department for Communities is to be successful, it has to be person-centred. It also has to be done in conjunction with the family. A pathway will be not suitable for another child just because they have the label of SEN.

I hope that that answers your question, Chair. We are happy to take any more at the same time.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It absolutely does. It is a reminder that we need to make sure that we do not overlook transitions. The Committee inquiry will probably not sort out the issue of what the final legislative proposals look like, although we may have some views on that that we can express in our report. It feels as though, even when the transition process happens, it does not do so particularly effectively. It is about the linkage with Health and about parents' understanding of the day opportunities that are out there. Is that the right model? If a learning disability assessment has not been done, will they need one to access those opportunities if they go down that route? Where does careers advice sit for those who want to move into an employment pathway? There is so much in that respect. It is really important that we do not lose sight of that because of some of the other issues that are further upstream in the system.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Dorothy and Fiona, for such an incredible briefing. It is detailed and extremely helpful for us as a Committee.

Dorothy, you started off really strongly, and you used the phrase "structurally inequitable": what powerful words. That really resonates. A number of parents with whom I have spoken are just gutted because of the system. They have no hope whatever. A really interesting aspect that you raised was safeguarding when it comes to travel and our SEN children. Thank you so much. That is definitely something that the Committee will follow up during the inquiry.

Communication with parents from the EA is an issue that has been raised time and time again. A lot of parents have said that, once they have received a diagnosis or statement, it feels as though they are on their own, navigating by themselves. They say that it is very difficult to find even a simple piece of paper that summarises who you go to, who you speak with and how to advocate for the rights of your child. There is real miscommunication there, and a real lack of effective public messaging from the EA. How could that be improved? Ultimately, we want our parents to feel heard.

Ms Murray: Totally. When my daughter was diagnosed, it was about meeting other parents and charities, going through the process of meeting the guys and starting SEN Reform. We heard from the charity SHINE last week: they were great. Places and people like that fill the gaps. Without those people and places, the picture would be a lot worse.

The EA could provide more information. That could be a simple, straightforward document that says, "Go to this team; go to that team". It would not be hard to do that. Once you know more information, you understand it a bit more, but, as you said, a lot of our parents do not know whom to turn to or whom they should speak to. We get a lot of reports that trying to get through to speak to someone in the EA or to get responses can be difficult at times. Again, those parents just feel lost and do not know where to turn. They then turn to other parents and to charities, which pick up a lot of the flak.

Ms Hunter: You are right. Something as simple as an infographic can communicate those basics. Sometimes it really can be something as simple as that.

Dorothy, you mentioned parents not feeling listened to. If the EA is listening to the Committee meeting, which, I believe, it will be, how could it display active listening?

Ms Murray: I will take the example of parental referrals, 96% to 97% of which are turned down automatically, when it is the parents who know the children the best. The EA could have more of a connection — more dialogue — with parents, taking some feedback and recommendations. As a group, we have gone to the EA with numerous recommendations. Some of those are quick wins, but others will take time.

We are not here just to bash the EA; that is not what this is. We want to work alongside the EA. We have always said that we are willing to work with the EA and the Department. I do not think that we can move forward without parental feedback. That is an important part of all the plans, and it needs to be included. Fiona may want to add to that.

Ms Cole: With all the announcements about special educational needs, the Department has been good at creating meetings and opportunities for co-design. We also see open webinars with new link officers. There is a will there, but there is no consistency in the level of input that parents have; there is no formalised group. We have consistently recommended things such as reviewing communication, but the Department has never asked what the touchpoints in our journey with the Education Authority are in getting these difficulties or what our suggestions are for overcoming them. Ultimately, it is not the fault of the person on the phone; it is the fault of the system that they work in and how difficult it is to navigate that communication.

It is worth saying that a lot of parents feel that the problem throughout the system is, as Dorothy said, gaslighting and mistrust. The systematic structure of inequality is always put against that individual burden of choice, where, whether or not the placement is suited to the child's needs, it is seen to be the parent who has not taken it. The parents are only advocating for the rights of their children, and we need to take that tension off them, whereby they feel that they are seen as asking too much or as a burden or it is regarded that they should be satisfied with what they have got. SPiMS is an example of that.

You may be familiar with one of the parents, Angela Haughey, who has said that she wanted to express her feelings in relation to that iniquity. She says:

That is a sentiment that is felt by many people. The only opportunity that she was given for a placement for this year was 20 miles down the road from where she lives. She has two other children in mainstream education. She is being told constantly, "We're giving you opportunities", but those opportunities are not practically viable. Our children deserve to get the educational setting that best meets their needs. It has a reverberating consequence for the wider economy of children's jobs and livelihoods if their educational needs are not met.

Ms Hunter: Thank you so much, Fiona. In the interests of the Chair not killing me, I have just one —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You got in ahead of me. We are probably going to be out of time, because we are running over. This is important evidence, and I have no desire to cut across the evidence that is being given. Sometimes, virtual meetings are tricky, in that it is difficult to be aware if you are cutting across, but it is not my intention to do so. In the interest of time, I will bring the next member in. There is so much to cover.

Ms Hunter: No problem, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for your patience, Cara.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Dorothy and Fiona.

Mrs Mason: Dorothy and Fiona, thank you very much for coming along and thanks for your presentation, the lobbying that you do and the support that, I know, you provide for parents and children.

Dorothy, you said so much in your opening presentation and raised many issues. We are sitting here and know that around 80 children are not in school because their places are not ready for them. They are off the list, but they are not in school. We know that many parents, who, you have said, know their children better than anybody else does, feel that the place that their child has been given does not meet their child's needs. I will be honest: I have been inundated with contact from parents, teachers, special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs), classroom assistants, principals, support staff and EA staff about the reality of the support that these children are getting or not getting. However, two weeks ago, we listened to the acting permanent secretary say that there had been a significant step forward. Last week, we sat and listened to the EA leadership telling us to listen to the EA — both of you mentioned gaslighting — and that SENCOs, teachers and schools had to do better and could do better. Do you have anything to say to that? Do you have anything to respond with?

Ms Murray: The teachers, SENCOs and classroom assistants are earth angels, because they look after our children, especially our children with SEN. My daughter's school is amazing, and every one of those people is amazing. They really are. They provide so much more than just an education to the children. They provide support for families — they provide everything that you can imagine. To hear what you have just described is heartbreaking, because we know those people personally, and we know that our children would not thrive without them. As well as that, the placements not being ready is nothing new. As a parent, it is so hard to see other children in their school uniforms going to school, knowing that your child is not going. That puts such stress and anxiety on a family. As I said before, yes, we are talking about education, but it filters into every other aspect of the child's life and the life of their family. It does not stop with their placement. When parents are not being told what is going on, it is not easy. It all takes so much time. Parents could be told more, and the placements should be ready. No child should be left waiting. Feedback that we are getting from parents is that the children are not getting any education in the interim. This is time that we will never get back. When that child goes through their years of education and leaves school, they cannot say, "Hold on. I wasted nearly one year when there wasn't a place for me". They do not get an extra year of education to make up for that. Early intervention is key: getting the intervention when the children are young to try to help them. Early intervention is missed a lot, and we cannot get that crucial time back.

Mrs Mason: Dorothy, do you feel that things have got any better? That is what we are told, but do you think that there have been significant steps?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask for a brief answer on that one, please, Dorothy.

Ms Murray: From the parental feedback that we get, the answer is no. There is still so much to do. We have the same issues as we had two years ago when we started. We had parents message us last week, coming up to this meeting, with the same issues. If things were better, they would have learned from previous mistakes, and we would not be hearing about them. There are quite a few of those issues that we should not still be hearing about.

Mrs Mason: Possibly, there is a perception that maybe the EA is more concerned about getting children placed — getting them off a list — than where they are actually going to. Do you agree?

Ms Murray: I agree, yes. It is more about numbers on a spreadsheet and budgeting than a physical child with a name who means something to a family. Yes, I agree.

Ms Cole: Chair, will you allow me to add to that quickly? The success measurements do not always look at partial absenteeism or school avoidance. We see measurements, but they are not being analysed, so the reality of what they show is only part of the picture.

Mrs Mason: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, both.

Mr Middleton: Thanks, Dorothy and Fiona. I have two questions. Dorothy, we read your briefing, and you mentioned in your opening statement trust, communication and belonging. Before you said it, I had written down the word "fundamental", and it is, because, if you do not have that sense of belonging, you do not have very much. You touched on poor communication. That is something that we hear about, sadly, not just in education; we hear it about all Departments, but we are here obviously to discuss education. What do you put that down to? Maybe it is a mixture of things. When you contact the EA, is it a mixture of staff pressures, a lack of understanding from staff and unclear remits? In the reality of what you are dealing with, is poor communication a mixture of all those things, or is there something that particularly stands out to you as to why that communication is poor?

Ms Murray: From my experience I remember when we were trying to get a placement for my daughter for P1, and it was the most stressful time that I have ever had. Just trying to speak to someone in the EA, just to even get an update, was stressful. You would call the number and ask to speak to the link officer who had been allocated to your child's case, and, nine times out of 10, they were in a meeting or they might have been off on leave or on sick leave. No one came behind that person to provide an update. I remember emailing and calling multiple times a day. It was getting to the point where I was desperate just to get an update. It is a mixture of a lot of things, but it would not take an awful lot to have good communication with parents. I always say that, even if you do not have an answer, if you respond to the parent and say that you do not have an answer but you are following it up, at least the parent knows where they stand. To have no answers and nobody answering is worse.

Mr Middleton: It is, and it is just common decency to respond. As you said, if you do not have the answer, you should at least have an acknowledgement. That is useful to know. That should be relatively easy to fix, but we will not hold our breath.

The other issue that you raised was unwilling placements, and you said that children are placed in schools that are perceived by parents as unwilling to accept them, which obviously impacts on the child's belonging. Could you give an example of where that has happened? I assume that a school would not want to make a child feel like that, but how did it happen?

Ms Murray: The EA has said that, when it has reached out to schools, some have come back and said no for a variety of reasons. We see a lot of attitudes, which is another thing. We have the age-old saying, "None of these needs were here back in my day. Why are they so prevalent today?". There are some schools where those attitudes, unfortunately, exist to this day, and, really, they should not. Some schools will say, "No, we do not want to open up to children with special educational needs". I do not have a case off the top of my head.

Mr Middleton: No, that is OK. I do not doubt that it is the case.

Ms Cole: As Dorothy said, some will cite safeguarding concerns as a reason; that they do not have the environment or the training to put a placement in. The hard part is that a lot of children with special educational needs will have distressing behaviour, and sometimes that can come out in physical, aggressive and verbal behaviour. We have seen, for example, in the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People's (NICCY) 2021 report, ‘Too Little, Too Late’, that, if you do not have the right environment for those children, they can be seen as disruptive. Their distressed behaviour almost escalates, and that is why there are safety concerns. Furthermore, the resources that mainstream schools have, although it has been identified, are lacking in what they can provide to create the best learning environment for all children.

Mr Middleton: Chair, in the interests of time, I will not ask a question on this, but I am particularly interested in post-19 provision. Certainly, with another hat in the Economy Committee, we are following that element. I want to let you know that we have not forgotten about that. I am sure that other members will want to ask questions. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Gary. We need to make sure that we factor in time for the transitions element in the inquiry. It is a key element.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Dorothy and Fiona, for your evidence, which has been so clear and so stark. We have heard those issues before, but one thing that you said that really resonated was that we need to move from reports and pilots to delivery. That is absolutely on the ball. I have a particular concern around that; I think that we all do. We hear about what is happening on the ground, and that is where the support needs to go. Yet, we hear about pilot projects that are happening under the guise of transformation that we cannot get any information on, not for the want of trying. I think that we will pick up on that later in correspondence. It is really frustrating that the help needs to be with you guys for the issues that you are articulating for us today.

Suitability of placements has been raised a few times, but I want to go into that, as you also mentioned the school avoidance issue and the sensitivities around that. In particular, parents end up being told that their child's absence is unauthorised and things such as that, because, effectively, the placement is not suitable. We have heard examples of parents being prosecuted because the child is not going to school. Could you speak about how prevalent that issue is? I would like to understand that a bit more.

Ms Murray: Yes. We see so many parents with that issue. The setting is unsuitable, so the child just cannot attend. Again, no alternative education is being put in place for those children, so it is just time wasted. The setting has to be right for the child. I have experienced both sides of the coin. As I mentioned, my daughter has been in mainstream education with one-to-one support. It was not a great year, and then she got a place in a special school. There is such a difference: because she is where she needs to be, she is absolutely thriving, and it is so brilliant to see. That should really be the case for every child. It is about getting the right setting; it is not just about, "Here is what we are offering you; let us make do with it". That is not right. I get the whole inclusion part. I totally understand where that is coming from, because everyone wants to be included, but there is a quote that really resonates with me. You may have seen it in the campaigns that we have run:

There is a lot here: it is not just about giving the child a placement; it is about making sure that it is the right one for them.

Mrs Guy: Do you think that it would ever be suitable for there to be a punitive effect from the EA towards a parent in the sense that, if they refuse that place for those reasons, action will be taken against them? Would it be justifiable in any circumstances when it comes to SEN?

Ms Murray: We know that it happens. It is not justifiable when it is about a child being punished or their parents penalised because the child has needs that mean that the child cannot go to a setting that is unsuitable.

Ms Cole: It would be interesting, Michelle, to see the relationship between statistics for people who are school-avoidant or have met the threshold for those officers coming in and statistics for homeschooling. A lot of families who get into that situation feel that there is no alternative other than to remove their child from education. Education other than at school (EOTAS) centres are not always naturally offered for education in other settings. What happens to those children is that, usually, one of the parents — many times, the woman — has to remove themselves from the workplace and become a full-time educator, which they are not qualified to do, with little pastoral support. In the end, they come to a mental exhaustion that will sometimes result in being hospitalised. At the moment, it is a system that just looks at numbers — how many times you do not attend school — and then it triggers that response. There is no child-centred understanding or even an understanding of the SEN correlation in that.

Mrs Guy: Thank you so much.

I will now touch on the cross-departmental working side of this, in particular, with Health. We talk about it all the time and get the sense that Health and Education are not working together adequately. Can you give us a sense of why it is so important to have therapists — speech and language therapists (SLTs) — available to your kids to give them the full breadth of therapies that they need? Why is that so vital?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am sorry to have to cut in. Can you give as brief an answer as possible on that? Thank you.

Ms Murray: The therapies are part of their education. Speech and language therapy is part of a child's education: teaching them how to speak and how to get that from them. Occupational therapy teaches children how to hold a pen so that they can begin to write and helps with getting the children dressed. To me, it is all included. It should all be included under education, because they should work together to teach the child.

Mrs Guy: Thank you.

Ms Cole: It is also a legal duty under the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. I apologise for having to clock-watch. This is not a briefing for which I enjoy clock-watching. There is so much evidence that we would really like to hear from you.

Again, we may need to take away whether we have factored enough engagement with Health into the process. I am already starting to hear echoes of my voice from the start of the meeting as to whether this will extend beyond Christmas. We will perhaps have that conversation later.

Mr Baker: Dorothy and Fiona, thank you so much. This is why it is so important to have the voice of parents here. You have been watching our Committee sessions, and it is clear that you have picked up on what has been said to us. Sometimes, it sounds all rosy in the garden, but it is far from the reality that is out there.

I am lucky to have a great school in my constituency, St Gerard's. When I speak to the school and to the parents from my constituency whose children get that place, they describe it as though it is the golden ticket. Is that the sense among your parents: that it is a relief when their child gets a special school setting compared with a child who may end up in SPiMS or out of school completely?

Ms Murray: Yes, I would say so from the feedback that we get. To be honest with you, when parents are fighting for any place, once they get a place that meets the child's needs, the relief is unimaginable. Even then, you still do not know whether to believe it until it actually happens, because things change quickly. I totally agree.

With regard to SPiMS, Health should be included. SPiMS can be good — we have parental feedback on ones that really work — but we have too many that are not working. In a special school, the therapies are there, and the speech and language therapists work with the teachers. Realistically, the teachers in the special school and the staff in the room are doing speech and language therapy with those children every day, regardless. You then also have your separate sessions with the speech and language therapist; whereas, in SPiMS, you are not getting that, so your child is on a waiting list, effectively. Therefore, a lot of children who are in SPiMS have not received any therapies and probably will not receive them for one to two years. That is not a lined-up approach for a child's education. It all has to come together. If you look, for example, at the LIT teams, you see that Health is not included in them. You want the EA and Health to work together for the future. That is not correlating if they are not involved in that.

Mr Baker: It is certainly not a child-centred approach then. I will not put words in your mouth: it is my view that it is then a special school on the cheap, and we need to move away from that. We need to make sure that the support has a child-centred approach.

You touched on the transport. I do not know whether they fully get it. I am not blaming the staff who are on the other end of the phone, but I do not know whether those who set policy actually understand how difficult it is for parents to get their child from the bedroom to the kitchen table and from the kitchen table to the front door and then to have to deal with the process of transport to the school. I want to give you the opportunity to tell some of the stories of how difficult it is for parents, when the communication is not there and when the transport is not there, as you said, a couple of days before. That is because we have not got the children placed in the right setting at the very beginning, when their peers are being given their place, and then you end up in this situation, with the stress and anxiety that that causes. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Ms Murray: Yes. We have had so many parents come to us about transport this year. I have also had massive issues with transport this year again. Whoever gets the tender gets it, but then you get a list of all the different drivers who are being sent to your door at all different times. For a lot of our children, the drivers never turned up on the first day of school, so our children were left sitting on the first day. It is also about the safety aspect. I did not realise how hard it was until I had my daughter. It is only from having her that I know how hard it is. The transport should be sorted out a lot sooner. We have one parent who came to us last week. They have their statement; they have transport in the statement, but the driver — the subcontractor — does other runs and could not facilitate her child going to school. They had to get an elderly relative to do an 80-minute trip to and from, twice a day, four days a week. They also had to take unpaid leave from their employers; they were having to turn up late to work. That is all just to get a child to school, because the child needs that education. It should not be that hard for parents. We should not have parents coming to us and saying that that is what happens.

Ms Cole: We would like to ask this question: who has the legal responsibility from when a child leaves a parent or carer's house to when they get to school? I ask that, given the point that Dorothy raised about suitability of car seats, subcontractors and issues there, if anything were to happen. In the past, children were left on buses, and, because they were non-verbal, they were not discovered. Who has that legal responsibility? I ask that because we have not been able to ascertain that.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

There is one last point, and there is probably a longer answer, but I want to touch on it: the statements. You said that the statement is a massive legal protection for parents. We have heard it hinted at by the Minister that you should not really need a statement to get the needs of your child met in school. We know that an awful lot of support needs to go in to make that a reality. I want you to put it on record: how important is that statement to parents?

Ms Murray: It is vital, because it is a legal right. I could tell you that the sky is green, but that does not mean that the sky is green. I could say that there is support in all those places, but that does not mean that there is support in all those places. The statement is the only thing that indicates that. Even with the statement, many parents still have to go to solicitors, and that speaks volumes.

Mr Baker: Thank you so much.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is really helpful. Statementing is another of the strands about which we will hopefully hear directly from the EA so that we can get a sense of what the situation looks like. We also need to hear from the Department on what the long-term policy direction is.

Mr Brooks: Thanks for your presentation. Throughout it, there was a lot of frustration expressed, such as integration with local impact teams and attempts to achieve a culture in which Departments work together and integrate, that we recognise from previous evidence sessions.

We are all familiar at this stage with the placements issue, and the frustration is completely understandable. There is a recognition that there are many children who, even though they may have a placement and are attending school, are not always in the optimal placement, which, all things being equal, we would like to see them in. Do you feel that the frustrations are primarily because of a capacity issue, as there are more people with the need for a special school placement than there are special school places available, and that there will therefore always be people who are in SPiMS or have some other provision that we would not optimally have be the case? Is that largely the issue, rather than there being an unwillingness on the part of the EA to place someone when there is a place for them?

Ms Murray: Capacity is a major issue. More places are needed. Last week, however, we had a parent come to us whose child was statemented in 2023. The statement was in place. The parent put down three schools and was told that there was no room in any of them. Their child was offered mainstream provision with one-to-one support, and the parent refused it. It was only when the parent got in touch with a solicitor to seek legal advice who then contacted the EA that a place became available in one of those schools. We see that happen quite a bit, normally coming up to the end of August.

Capacity is an issue, but it is not the only issue, because places seem to become available. As we said, specialist provision is there that has already been funded by the EA. The money has been handed over, the units are staffed, and the staff are well trained and have everything that the children need, yet the provision is sitting empty to this day. There are no kids there. There is not a straightforward answer. There is more to it than meets the eye.

Ms Cole: It is not about just capacity but about having consistency and the provision being child-centred and child-led. When it works, it works extremely well, but the problem is that the parents are always made to feel that their valued contribution to the process is less than is necessary.

Mr Brooks: I do not want to say that there is good SPiMS and bad SPiMS, but I hear that there are SPiMS units that have got it and thus do well, while there are others on which a bit of work and more support is needed in order to get there. We talked about the health side becoming more involved. I understand and accept that. The plan includes provision for more special schools, and we all understand that. I am not making a political point, but I want to try to understand whether it is just a case of getting the finances in order, which is something with which we are all familiar.

From your presentation, I picked up that there are SPiMS units that have been built and are ready but are sitting empty. What is the usual reason for that? I have not necessarily come across a situation in which everything is ready to go but people are not using the units.

Ms Murray: We are not sure. The EA allocates the places to children. It maps the children to the schools. We do not know.

Mr Brooks: If you do not know, that is fair enough. I was just curious, because I have not come across that circumstance.

Ms Murray: We are not too sure, but we do know that the units are sitting empty.

Mr Brooks: It could be because of staffing levels or something else. I am just unsure about why that might be.

I will ask two quick questions together, because they are related. Earlier, you referred to transport being provided without the required car seats. I understand that that contract is relatively lucrative. If we are to spend money on car seats, we need to do so properly.

You also mentioned AccessNI having flagged convictions and said that parents are worried. I can understand that. We are getting into grey areas, but there are different types of convictions. If a person was convicted of shoplifting 10 years ago, does that mean that they are a danger to children? They probably are not. Are the convictions that you mentioned significant enough to make you concerned that those people are a danger to children?

Ms Murray: Yes.

Mr Brooks: OK. I will not ask you to get into it here, but have you raised that with the Department?

Ms Murray: It came via parent feedback. Some of our parents will take things further, while others will not. We cannot raise an issue unless a parent approves our doing so. I am not sure whether that particular issue has been raised, but there have been a few cases.

Mr Brooks: Jon raised an issue during a previous session. I do not know whether we followed up on it, but if did not, we probably should do.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We can check on those actions at the end. That warrants some follow-up, for sure.

Mr Brooks: Thank you.

Mr Burrows: That was superb, Dorothy and Fiona. You are experts by experience, as I always say. What you have said is what we need to hear.

I have a couple of questions. Storm Amy happened recently. Disruption is felt most acutely by children with special educational needs, because they like routine. Would it be useful to have an app that allowed the EA to send out a message the night before a potential closure to say, "We are considering closing the school. We will know by 8.00 am and make a final decision then", after which the principal could send a message to parents at 8.00 am to say, "Yes, we are closing"? Would that make things easier for children with special educational needs?

Ms Murray: Yes. My daughter was in school by the time that we got the message, so it was then a case of who would get her from school. When you have more than one child, it becomes a scramble.

Mr Burrows: I want to come away from this evidence session knowing that there is some way in which the EA can press a button so that a principal will receive a message and not have to look for an email. By the way, when I come into work in the morning, I do not check my emails. I do other things first, such as get breakfast or have a meeting with someone. That probably applies to people in every Department, so that may be a lesson to learn.

My second point concerns risk. I have an interest in risk management. This is more of an observation that I want to put on record, before I ask you a question about transport. If we say that safety comes first, so the school will be closed at midday, if that message is conveyed late, instead of being in a modern, secure school, a child could be sitting at a bus stop exposed to the elements, as I heard that some children were, waiting for a bus that does not arrive and then being frightened to go back into the school in case they miss the next bus. The way in which we manage risk can therefore sometimes increase risk.

I am interested in transport. The taxi-driving system in Northern Ireland is lax. My understanding of it is that the taxi licensing system is run by the Department for Infrastructure, which checks whether a driver is a fit and proper person. The next step is for the Education Authority to do an enhanced AccessNI check. I say that the system is lax, because, for example, there was a chap named Brian Stalford who had 66 convictions. I would not trust him to run a bath, never mind take people in a taxi, yet the Department for Infrastructure approved him for a taxi licence. He then pointed a gun at someone while he was high on coke. The problem is that we rely on the Education Authority to be 100% on its game so that such a person never sneaks through the system and ends up picking up your child with special educational needs. That is what I really want to get into.

The information that I got from the Department of Education states that, last year, 24 people were disqualified from providing the special educational needs service to the Education Authority. I do not know the circumstances of the taxi drivers who were disqualified, but I am going to dig down into the issue. First, does it concern you that some people could have convictions? I know that you have already spoken about that. Secondly, are we 100% sure that the taxi driver who turns up each day is a taxi driver whom the Education Authority has approved?

If the approved person were off sick, would a taxi company say, "Jon Burrows can go and pick that child up"? That is what I am trying to get at. Sorry for the lengthy prelude. When the rubber hits the road, however, do you have confidence that the person who picks your child up for an unsupervised journey is a person who has been approved by the Education Authority?

Ms Murray: I —.

Ms Cole: We want to ask who has the legal responsibility. At the moment, when responsibility is subcontracted, there are real safeguarding concerns.

You talked about an enhanced AccessNI disclosure check, but it is just a standard check that does not even contain information about a driver's suitability. Sorry, I cut across you, Dorothy.

Ms Murray: The way in which it works is that, half the time, a taxi driver just turns up and says, "I am here to take your daughter or son to school". We do not know who will turn up, because we do not know who has the tender until very late on. We do not know who the taxi driver will be.

I have been given the name of about 10 taxi drivers who were to pick my daughter up so far this year, but we hope that the situation is now being better managed. It is madness every year, to be honest. We are not told who will take our daughter to school every day. We have had a few different drivers already, and we are only in October. The EA deals with all of that. I hope that it is the right person, but I have no control over whether it is.

Mr Burrows: That is where —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Just a brief final comment, Jon.

Mr Burrows: The Committee needs 100% assurance that the system and its operation goes a step above.

I was told that there is an enhanced check done before drivers do EA work. The person who is approved by the Education Authority should be the person doing the pickup, because they have unsupervised access to someone who is vulnerable.

I am keen to do a deeper dive into the threshold for previous convictions that, the decision maker thinks, is appropriate. We are putting the safety of our children into someone's hands, and we need to make sure that they are absolutely the right person.

By the way, £30 million a year is spent on taxis, so it is unacceptable if the driver turns up without a child seat. There needs to be a reporting mechanism in place. Do you have a mechanism by which you can quickly establish that Joe Bloggs turned up without a child seat?

Ms Murray: You have to phone the EA transport helpline to let it know. Either you send your child in the taxi to school or you try to make alternative arrangements at whatever time of the morning. The only contact that we have is EA transport.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Dorothy.

Mr Burrows: In that case, cost recovery is ridiculous.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have to bring the session to a close. There is a lot of transport stuff in the mix that we will pick up through actions arising.

Mrs Guy: I had a question for written answer on that specific issue, but I can pick up on that later. The answer may not be accurate, but it answers it, for sure.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is great.

Thank you both. It is clear from the questioning that the session could have run on for longer. There is so much ground to cover. We really appreciate your taking the time to brief us today and thank you for your really thorough answers that brought a parental perspective to the issue.

You mentioned some personal accounts that you wanted to share with us, so if you want to provide any further evidence in writing that you do not feel that you got to cover today, that will be really helpful evidence for the inquiry. The Committee Clerk has also noted some of the specific issues that you want us to pick up on, and transport is one of them. Thank you both very much.

Ms Cole: Thank you, Chair and members.

Ms Murray: Thank you.