Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are joined today by Chris Quinn, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), and Joanne McGurk, who is the head of the legal and investigations department at the commissioner's office. You are both very welcome. I do not think that you, Chris, or your office needs any particular introduction. Everybody around the table is familiar with your work. If you want to give a general introduction, however, feel free to do so.

We are glad to have you here to contribute to the strategic review of special educational needs. It is important to note that some of NICCY's reports, particularly the 'Too Little, Too Late' report on SEN by the commissioner's office, have been really instrumental in getting a lot of the issues on to the public agenda and in giving a voice to the experiences of children and parents who are navigating the system. Even in the inquiry that we are undertaking now, a lot of it probably comes back to the work that your office did, and I know that you continue to do a lot of work in the space.

I will now hand over to you to make some opening remarks or to give a presentation. I ask that any presentation be up to 10 minutes, after which Committee members will ask questions. We will try to keep each individual contribution to five minutes to help us get through today's agenda. I will hand over you, Chris.

Mr Chris Quinn (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. As the Commissioner for Children and Young People, my statutory duty under the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 is clear. It is:

We also advise government and the relevant authorities on law, policy and practice affecting those rights. In doing so, I am guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which requires that every child have access to an effective, inclusive education that enables them to reach their full potential.

Today's discussion on special educational needs provision and the transformation agenda is therefore critical. For too long, the SEN system has been characterised by delays, complexity and barriers that prevent children from accessing the support that they need. NICCY's 2020 review report 'Too Little, Too Late', which you referenced, Chair, and subsequent advice papers have highlighted systemic failings, including excessive delays in statutory assessment and statementing and a lack of early identification of children's needs and a lack of early intervention; insufficient capacity and resources in schools and support services; poor coordination between the Department of Education and the Department of Health; and a lack of meaningful participation by children, young people and families in decisions that affect them.

Although the revised SEN regulations and code of practice represent an opportunity for meaningful reform, progress has been slow. Indeed, I can report no dramatic improvements since the publication of 'Too Little, Too Late' six years ago. The SEN reform agenda and delivery plan are welcome, but implementation must be underpinned by adequate funding, robust governance and clear accountability. Without those elements, the risk remains that transformation will be a change in name only and that children will continue to experience unmet need, lost educational opportunity and, in some cases, breaches of their rights.

The Committee's scrutiny role is therefore vital. We need to ensure that the framework will deliver early identification, timely intervention and joined-up support and that the Education Authority (EA) and the Department of Education are held to account when it comes to meeting their statutory duties. We also need transparency on how local impact teams (LITs) will operate, on how waiting times will be reduced and on how equality of opportunity will be safeguarded for every child. It is about more than process; it is about a child's rights. The decisions taken now will shape the education experiences of thousands of children with SEN in years to come, and NICCY stands ready to support the Committee in ensuring that the reform is not only well intentioned but effective, rights-compliant and resourced to succeed.

In my analysis, I will start by welcoming the principle of transformation, but it is pertinent to ask when we will see the improvements. How do we know that outcomes for children and young people are improving, and in what way? What are the time frames to which we are working? What are the targets? How will those targets be measured and by whom? I am acutely aware that too many children are being failed and that the number of parents who are deregistering their children from education is increasing year-on-year. That is often because children with special educational needs and disabilities are not getting what they need from the education system. They are being forced into such situations, and that is a breach of the child's fundamental right to education.

The statistics from our annual casework and legal review for 2024-25 show an increase in complaints to our office from 36% to 47% about special educational needs. That is an 11% increase in one year. Joanne will be able to talk more about that during our Q&A. I have seen many cases in which a school is unable to meet the needs of the child or in which the Education Authority is not communicating effectively with parents. I have seen examples of children with literacy support needs for whom changes in LITs have resulted in their experiencing extreme anxiety and leaving school as a result. I have seen examples of children being counted as being in contingency arrangements. The parents have no school start date for them and have had no communication from the EA. There is not even a physical classroom or an appointed teacher, yet those children are being counted as having been placed.

I am sure that you all have examples of how the rhetoric does not always match the lived experiences of children and their families.

I recognise the complexity of the task facing the Education Authority and the commitment of many staff, but there remains a gap between the stated ambition and the lived experiences of children and their families. I have concerns about the planning processes, about the communication with children and young people and their parents and about joined-up working among Departments. In addition, there is a lack of up-to-date, timely and accurate data, which hampers the ability to monitor and review the effectiveness of laws and services that affect children and young people. Greater transparency and detail on how the Department of Health and the Department of Education work together, including on data sharing and their consideration of workforce planning to improve early intervention and support for children with SEND, would be welcome. I encourage the Committee to consider that as part of its inquiry.

I will make some key observations about the SEND landscape before I pause to take questions. The first is on trends that we cannot ignore. The SEN register has remained broadly stable over the past decade, yet the number of statutory statements has doubled. That reflects unmet need at early stages. That escalates, resulting in more complex cases that require costly and intensive interventions. The increasing use of reduced timetables and prolonged absences of children with additional needs raise serious equality and discrimination concerns. The number of children deregistering has increased steadily every year, from 287 in 2017-18 to 1,220 in 2024-25. That is an increase of 335% in seven years. The way in which the data is collected means that we do not have an accurate picture of why that is happening. Through, however, our casework and fieldwork, such as our school absence research, we know that unmet SEND need is a factor in that.

My second observation is that systemic issues persist, despite transformation. The Northern Ireland SEND legal framework is robust, but operational systems remain slow and bureaucratic. Although the Education Authority and Department of Education have invested significantly, children continue to experience delays and barriers to, and loss of, education.

My third observation is on opportunities and risks with local impact teams. Although LITs offer clear potential for, for example, a single referral route, improved governance, better data oversight and more joined-up working, many questions remain, especially if the LITs are not properly resourced. We risk repeating previous patterns of rationing support or not provided it when it is needed. In that context, I am particularly worried about staffing and funding uncertainty, as well as about to where in the system those pressures are displaced. They could, for example, be displaced to special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs), classroom assistants or teachers. We have clear examples of that happening, such as with literacy support. I would therefore be interested in the Committee investigating that issue further in its deliberations.

My fourth observation is on escalating need and the rise in statements. There are around 70,000 pupils on the SEN register. That figure has remained stable, but the proportion of statements rose from 22% in 2014-15 to 42% in 2024-25. That is evidence not of overidentification but of the system's failure to intervene early.

My fifth observation is on cooperation among children's services. SEN support depends on effective cooperation between the education sector and the health and social care sector, including speech and language therapy (SLT), occupational therapy, child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), diagnostics and social services. It would be useful if the Committee were to seek more clarification on how Health and Education cooperate, including on the mechanisms by which practitioners can make referrals upon the identification of need and at what age that happens. I will talk more about that later, because NICCY feels strongly that early intervention is key.

My sixth observation relates to transparency and accountability. There is an urgent need for comprehensive published data, including data on LITs, outcomes, waiting times, unmet need and equality impacts. Transformation must remain subject to effective scrutiny in order to ensure alignment with statutory duties and children's rights.

I will now make some points on what we feel needs to change. First, investment in pupil support services must change. Services must be designed and funded to deliver timely, effective support, not crisis management. We need to focus more on pre-crisis intervention and support. Secondly, we need to move beyond short-term solutions. For example, specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) can be valuable, but it is not a substitute for systemic reform. The system must move away from crisis management towards sustainable planning.

Thirdly, training and support for classroom assistants and teachers must be expedited. I know that you will have heard that throughout your inquiry, but I reinforce the message. There should also be training and support on trauma-informed practice, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and behavioural support. Fourthly, communication and engagement with parents, carers and schools must be improved. In 2020, 'Too Little, Too Late' proposed new methods of communication and transparency for the SEN process.

Fifthly, transparency and accountability must be embedded in the system. We need published, accurate and timely data to establish clear governance and to ensure robust scrutiny of legal duties. That links back to the recommendations that were made as part of 'Too Little, Too Late'. Sixthly, we need to operationalise joined-up working. Partnership between the education sector and the health and social care sector most move from aspiration to practice, particularly for children with complex needs.

Seventhly, we must prioritise early intervention and identification of need, ensuring that placements meet children's needs. We therefore need to reduce bureaucracy to empower schools to act early. Planning for school placements should begin when the child is two, not four or five. Diagnostic uncertainty cannot be used to justify delay. Early and joined-up planning between the Department of Education and the Department of Health is therefore essential. Eighthly, we need to develop a clear inclusion policy. Inclusion must be clearly defined and embedded in departmental policy and the curriculum in order to guarantee equality and rights. I can cross-reference that recommendation with article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). I can also give the Committee the comments from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on article 24 from one of its concluding observation sessions.

Ninthly, data-sharing barriers must be resolved. Persistent failures in sharing health and education data must be addressed at permanent secretary and ministerial levels. Finally, we need to secure sustainable funding. SEN transformation requires long-term, strategic and child-centred investment, not short-term fixes.

Children and families have waited a long time for meaningful SEND reform. What they need now is not further aspiration but action: measurable, transparent and timely action. I thank the Committee for its scrutiny of the issues, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. As is always the case when we look at SEN and the overarching picture, it is hard to know where to begin, because it is such a big, complex system, and everything is interconnected. I will start with the issue of SPiMS. Your submission to the inquiry is clear on that, but I want to pin it down. Do you see a place for that model of placement for children to meet a child's needs, or do you have fundamental concerns about it as an approach?

Mr Quinn: I definitely see a place for it. To be fair, the Department and the Education Authority have reacted to there being a lack of physical spaces. We have carried out our own piece of work on SPiMS, which I can share with the Committee. We have given it to the Education Authority for its response, which we await. I have visited lots of SPiMS settings. I can see in which SPiMS work really well.

When managed well and planned well, there is an inclusive environment, but it is not a means to an end. Schools and school leaders will often be apprehensive about taking on a new unit. In the feedback that we get, we hear a lot that that is because of a lack of support, perceived or otherwise.

Joanne may want to come in at this point. Anecdotally, we often hear that there is a lack of communication about planning for children who will be placed in SPiMS. That makes life a lot more difficult for teachers and staff. Do you want to come in on that point, Joanne?

Ms Joanne McGurk (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): There is certainly an issue with planning and with parents being advised that their children have placements. I am sure that members will have heard that in their constituencies. Parents may be waiting for two or three months, only then to receive inappropriate communication or a lack of communication. They may then hear that a teacher will not be recruited until November. They hear that in the summer. There is therefore an issue there.

We have had some positive feedback about the need not to travel and about very successful SPiMS placements, but we have also had SPiMS providers reporting concerns about the provision. There may be health and safety concerns or concerns about the need for additional support. They cannot access that support in a timely way. That is creating significant issues for children and staff. There therefore needs to be an ability to be flexible, to respond appropriately and to resource the provision appropriately to ensure that it is successful for children.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I imagine that other members will pick up on the issue of placements in more detail, as it has been a recurring theme. I will therefore not go into that in too much detail, but you did reference in your submission to the inquiry that where provision is located is important. You said that, because placements are often unplanned and are instead reactionary, children often end up having to travel considerable distances in order to get specialist provision, when there may be schools all around them that have capacity yet have not facilitated such provision.

Two questions arise from that. First, do you think that we need to give serious attention to whether schools should be permitted to decline taking in children with SEND? If a need is identified, should schools be able to say that they do not want to offer specialist provision? That is what is happening currently. You highlight a range of reasons for their saying that, but I want to get your view.

Secondly, what is your position on what is in the best interests of the child? Should the goal be for children with additional needs to be educated in their own community rather than be bused miles away, simply because there is not any provision anywhere near them?

Mr Quinn: Part of the solution is to have a clear policy on what inclusion looks like. If we had the policy driver, we could build a better system.

In preparation for the meeting, I looked at 'Every School a Good School', which was published in 2009, if memory serves me correctly. Although there were criticisms of it, the principle was that every school should be a good school and an inclusive school, and 'Every School a Good School' did speak to inclusion. Sometimes, however, there is an overemphasis on the idea that putting SPiMS in place is the solution, although I agree that children should have access to an inclusive education system in their community.

We have seen how children can spend a long time travelling, and we have seen headlines about the financial impact of that. I am more worried about the well-being impact on a child, because how can a child be ready for school in those circumstances? Where possible, I therefore advocate local schools being inclusive schools, but I recognise that SPiMS will sometimes not be able to meet the needs of the child, which is why we need a broader special —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is the role of special schools, and all of that clarified needs to be clarified in policy. We need to keep coming back to the fact that the rights of the child and the well-being of the child are the most important aspects.

I raised the issue about travel because it was fresh in my mind. Someone in my constituency has had a really successful placement in a mainstream preschool with specialist provision. It is right in the heart of their home town, but they are already being told that their options for P1 are likely to include a 45-minute to one-hour trip. The mother is already saying that she knows that her child could not cope with that. My gut reaction is that it does not feel appropriate, but many parents often have to take up such options because there is no other appropriate provision nearby. The planned aspect of the placement is important.

I have a final question, and I raise it because you have paid attention to this issue in your role, Chris. The inquiry has not heard a huge amount of evidence on the matter. We have talked about early placements, by my question is about placements after someone has moved out of education and is in transition. How effective is the planning process for transition out of school into the next step, be it further education or a work/training initiative, for children and young people with additional needs?

Mr Quinn: I would argue that transition planning is an issue throughout the child's life. For example, I have visited P1 and P2 SPiMS classes, and the parents do not know what is going to happen to their children in P3, P4 and P5. There can be difficulties with the transition between primary and secondary school. I feel very strongly about the cliff edge at age 19, and there is great work going on in that space. We all know about Caleb's cause, and I would argue that we need legislative change, which will require the Department for the Economy, the Department of Education and others to work together. At the minute, however, we are leading children to a cliff edge. I will quote a parent, who told me her aspiration:

That principle needs to be applied, and the way in which our education system and other systems are set up means that they do not plan for children with special educational needs.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): My next question was going to be on whether we need to see legislative change in that space, but you have answered it. We are starting to think about the recommendations that will arise from our inquiry, and I am keen to see something being done about making legislative changes to provide what is needed at that stage. At the start of today's meeting, I mentioned the informal briefing that we had from a young man called Kingston, who explained to us his experience of the system. He was clear that transition planning was not effective. He was not really offered any options. That cannot be acceptable. Other members are keen to come in, so I will draw a line under my questions there.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you for coming to the Committee, Chris. You outlined how the majority of cases that your legal and investigations department has dealt with have been to do with education and told us that the greatest proportion of those cases are to do with SEN. It has been almost a year since the Minister launched his SEN reform agenda and delivery plan. Have you noticed any substantive change in the time since that new delivery plan was launched?

Mr Quinn: Joanne, do you want to lead on that?

Ms McGurk: Yes, I am happy to. Every year, we produce an annual report. The statistics that Chris quoted are our 2024-25 figures. Before we came to the Committee today, I tried to analyse recent trends. The same cases are coming through again. The figures show that half the cases are about education, while over half those cases are about special educational needs. They are about assessments and declined assessments that are then conceded at the door of the court; late placements; a lack of communication; and a lack of identification of needs at school level that become exacerbated needs later down the line, which results in school refusal or anxiety, unfortunately. That is not the full picture, however, because I do not have the figures for the full year. I have looked at figures quarter on quarter. At the end of April, we will have the statistics in full. I am not sure at what stage your inquiry will be at that time, but I can send the figures through to the Committee, should that be helpful. I appreciate that it is relatively early days, but we have not seen a change in that trend at the moment.

Mr Quinn: When I look back at the 'Too Little, Too Late' report from six years ago, I struggle to point to where improvements have been made. Speaking candidly, I get frustrated when I speak directly to parents and children, because their lived experience does not match the changes that we have been told have been made.

As I said, there are really good people who are working hard to try to turn the situation around. There is an issue in getting adequate and timely data and updates, which impacts on my ability to provide a robust analysis of whether the system is changing. When I speak with people who are leading the change, I hear good things and hear that there is progress. However, I do not see it when I am in schools or talking to parents. We need to address why that is the case. That is why I am leaning so heavily into the need for timely, accurate and up-to-date data, which will enable us to analyse the situation efficiently.

Mr Sheehan: Joanne, you mentioned the SEN appeals. In their evidence to the Committee, someone said that 95% of the appeals were conceded by the Education Authority. The chief executive, Richard Pengelly, told us on 1 October last year that the vast majority of appeals are conceded because of information being introduced that could have been introduced before the start of the appeal process. In effect, he was blaming parents, medics, schools and so on, rather than the EA. Is that your experience?

Ms McGurk: I have a difficulty with that defence of why appeals are conceded. When parents or a school submit an application for a statutory assessment, they will normally have been through processes and have children who are experiencing significant needs and need help as soon as they can get it. They give everything that they have. The barriers should not be in front of them, and the onus should not be on them to go scrambling for information that is in the system, either with health professionals or with the school. Of course, it is very important that they, and the child, have their opportunity to put forward the information. Parents do not know that they are going to be refused statutory assessment and, until they get the information on how or why they are being refused that, they cannot rebut it. Therefore, I do not accept that position. I understand that that is the position that is put forward, but the barriers should be removed. There should be an almost inquisitorial element when somebody is asking for a statutory assessment. Why is it being asked for? What information is in the system to make sure that we have everything that we need to be able to assess the case and identify the needs? The response should not be to put up a barrier and ask, "How can we not provide support?". There is an argument for asking what else needs to be provided, but you need to remove obstacles and look for the information on why a parent is asking for this for the child. It will be to meet the child's best interests and needs.

Mr Sheehan: There is a suspicion that all the obstacles are set up in the hope that parents who do not know their way around the system or how to navigate it will eventually just say, "I do not know how to progress this", and withdraw their appeal.

Ms McGurk: Parents are extremely concerned and exhausted when they go through this process. As Committee members, you will all know that, because you will have received complaints about it in your constituencies. Sometimes, the parents who come to us feel like there is another obstacle in the way and feel exhausted at having to fight at every avenue. We need to move those obstacles so that it is not a fight and we are, in fact, looking for the information to make sure that their needs are identified and met.

Mr Sheehan: All the issues that I am talking about are related. The other one is the lack of communication between the Education Authority and parents. I have been reassured on numerous occasions by the EA that it is setting up more phone lines and putting more people on to casework and so on and so forth. However, we are still getting numerous complaints from parents. For example, we have received complaints from parents that they have not been able to contact the EA, despite phoning dozens of times. That is a particular issue in the summer, when the parents of children who have not received placements are trying to get in touch with the EA. It is a nightmare for them. In your casework, are you seeing any improvement in the communication between the EA and families?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask for a brief response.

Ms McGurk: Communication is a continuing theme. In recent years, we have not tracked trends, as such, when it comes to specific communications, but it is a continuing theme, including when we try to contact the EA and want a response. Chris will be able to talk to that a wee bit more when it comes to trying to get general information, but we have difficulties when we are pursuing individual cases and have to challenge that.

Mr Sheehan: It is amazing that even you and your colleagues are having communication difficulties. Thanks for that.

Mrs Mason: Thanks very much for your presentation. It was really useful. Chris, you mentioned something that we have heard time and again: theory versus the reality on the ground. I think that every single witness whom we have had at Committee has said that exact same thing in a different form of words. We have heard from teachers, principals, classroom assistants, SENCOs and parents. Everybody says the same thing.

You mentioned literacy support, which registered with me. We have heard evidence from SENCOs on how difficult it is to get literacy support. We have heard from staff in the EA who are trying their best to get the right support to the children but are finding that the new system does not allow them to do so. Yet, when the EA speaks to us, it tells us that things are wonderful and that more children are getting better support. What is your view on that? Have you heard that?

Mr Quinn: Yes. Joanne might want to come in on this, because literacy support is something on which we have sought clarity. As is the case for you with your constituents, a lot of my time, Joanne's time and our team's time is spent speaking with parents who are in crisis. In my opening statement, I gave the example of a child who deregistered because their literacy support was not being picked up by the new LIT. That situation created so much anxiety for the child that they removed themselves from education altogether. In my community, I have seen literacy support being pulled, even though the children have really benefited from it and the people who provide it have reported their anxiety about pulling out.

Joanne, you might want to talk more about the specifics of the cases and the information that we ask for from the EA.

Ms McGurk: We were contacted about this. It was concerning that people who work in that field were finding the system difficult to understand and work through. They did not feel that they were meeting the needs of the child with whom they were working. We wrote about a few things. There were concerns about there being only 12 sessions and that they would have to pull out; the sessions being an hour long, and how that is too long for some; three sessions being needed to establish a working dynamic; a lack of clarity on how to make a referral; and who is eligible. There was also concern about the pause; confusion about the referrals process; concern about staff not using particular terms associated with literacy support; and concern about the way in which scoring was done. Those are just a few of the issues. We received a comprehensive response from the EA that addressed some of those concerns. I was concerned about the complexity of the information that we received and the amount of time that would be needed to work through it to understand it, be clear about the referrals process and be satisfied that that was going to meet the needs of the child.

As Chris said, there is a lot of good work going on, but the issue is making sure that that is clear and that people have the time to engage with that, report concerns, monitor how that is working and monitor what the issues are with it. All of those things are concerning.

Mr Quinn: We need to give LITs time to breathe and develop, but I am concerned about resourcing and how literacy support, for example, is being pulled. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta made representations to me about how literacy support and diagnostics in Irish-medium education (IME) are additional to all of the challenges that we are facing. There is an added barrier in IME that should be looked at as part of this work.

Mrs Mason: I could not agree more. You mentioned having the right resources and data. We were assured that more children were getting this support, and we were promised the data on that, but, as far as I am aware, the Committee still has not received that. On the issue of resources, we are speaking to literacy teachers who were out five days per week providing one-to-one support but are now doing only two days per week, if even, so there is three days' worth of resources that do not seem to be being used.

There are a couple of other things that I want to cover.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Time is very short, Cathy. You used most of your time on that one, so it will just be a quick final point.

Mrs Mason: You spoke about the anxiety that comes out of that situation and cited a particular case. We spoke before about emotionally based school non-attendance, and very often it is children with SEND who are impacted most by that. You mentioned investment in pupil support services, yet we have a Minister who last year made the decision to not extend counselling services to schools. What is your view on that and the impact that it will have, especially on those children affected by non-attendance?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): As briefly as you can because we have to move on.

Mr Quinn: Generally, children's support needs are not being met. That is the case across a lot of areas that I look at. Early intervention is key, so I would prefer the Education Authority to be working more closely with Health and talking about diagnostics and early signs at age two or as early as possible. That is part of it.

We are doing a big bit of research on anxiety based school avoidance. I point you to the 335% increase in deregistrations in schools in the past seven years. Whilst we know, through our fieldwork and research, that SEND is an issue, the way that the data is collected does not give a clear picture, so we need to ask more about why deregistrations are happening. My hypothesis is that there is definitely an element of anxiety based school avoidance that is linked to all of that.

Mrs Mason: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Members may want to pick up on that because there are, obviously, a lot of connections between attendance and special educational needs

Mr Burrows: That was really useful. I have three questions that I would like to get through, if we have time. One is about the budgets of schools. Whenever I speak to headmasters, there seems to be a frustration about people asking, "Can we do this?" and "Can we do that?", because 82% — I think that that is the figure — of their budgets are taken up by salaries. When you then add other non-discretionary spend on buildings and utilities, there is very little money left to do anything else. Do we just need to be honest that schools have very little wriggle room to do anything other than the basics because of the way that they are resourced?

Mr Quinn: From speaking with school leaders directly, there is something in giving them more flexibility to use their budgets more efficiently. You will probably hear lots of stories about repairs to schools and how the procurement system is resulting in paying over the odds for basic maintenance.

School leaders have also spoken to me about having the ability to use their budgets to employ specialist classroom assistants, for example, speech and language or specifically skilled teaching staff. Whilst I am not an expert on the school budget system, the feedback that I am hearing is more about flexibility and empowerment for school leaders.

I want to note my concern about the directive to not hire substitute teachers. That is a really concerning safeguarding issue, and it does need to be looked at. That is not related directly to your question, but we need to do more work on using the money that we do have in a more flexible way, and school leaders will have their own ideas about that.

Mr Burrows: I agree with you on that. I come across the procurement issue in every school. Typically, I am finding that it is probably 300% more expensive to use the procured service for, say, maintenance or painting than it is to use the local handyman or woman. I will park that for a second.

In your written evidence, you mentioned poor planning and communication when it comes to SEN. Do you agree that the imminent replacement of the schools information management system provides the opportunity to have a portal that is regularly updated and accessible to all relevant statutory bodies?

Mr Quinn: Does that relate to the portal that is being developed?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Quinn: We want to monitor that. Joanne and her team have been liaising with the Education Authority and getting a better understanding of how it works. We need a better system of collating and sharing information, and that needs to go beyond Education. One of my questions is about how Encompass will talk to the new system. Joanne might want to come in on the issue of the new software.

Ms McGurk: It certainly represents an opportunity for change and for parents to be updated when information is received. It will be a matter of monitoring it to make sure that it is working and is updated effectively so that parents get the information that they need from it.

Mr Burrows: I have a final question. I am concerned about reduced timetables. That practice seems to be a significant issue for pupils who are perceived to be challenging or who have additional needs. What are your thoughts on that? Do we need to legislate for a more consistent approach? I am worried about the use of reduced timetables compounding disadvantage.

Mr Quinn: There is definitely an equity and equality issue with reduced timetables. My analysis is that the placement often does not meet the needs of the child. There is definitely more work to be done. It is not acceptable for a child to be in a school placement of two hours a day and for that to count, as if to say, "That's the box checked". That needs further investigation, and maybe the Committee could look into it. A lot of the time, the issue is the placement not meeting the need. It comes back to workforce. The workforce need to be supported and trained to deal with the issues that they are being confronted with. A lot of the time, those issues manifest in the behavioural problems that we see a lot of in schools and other settings.

Ms McGurk: In general, reduced timetables are unlawful, and children who are on them are not able to access the full education that they are entitled to. We need to be careful about legislation, because, at the moment, they should not be used. As Chris said, if there is an issue, it is generally as a result of a placement or provision that does not meet the child's needs. Reduced timetables are an interim, emergency and risk-assessed measure. They should only be used in the very short term, and there should be a very fast response to them. We are aware that their use is not always recorded. That needs to be pursued so that there is accurate data on who is not receiving an effective education.

Mr Burrows: Thank you. That completes my questions. Thanks for your briefing.

Mr Baker: Thank you. I am well on the record as saying that children with special educational needs have been failed and continue to be failed. I will concentrate on three key areas. One area that has been touched on is placements. We need a policy change. If we could explore — I have said this to the EA and the Minister — a SEN-first approach and put children with special needs and with additional needs first, things would fall into place a lot quicker. I say that because, if we look at June of last year, when hundreds of children were not placed, we will see that the Education Minister was in Florida and the chief executive of the EA was sitting at Wimbledon. If hundreds of children in mainstream education had been in that predicament, I guarantee you that that would not have been the case. That is my view.

The other two sides to it are about the decisions that continue to be made. When it comes to education other than at school (EOTAS) centres and referrals not going there, in my experience, the young people who go to such centres have not been supported at an earlier stage and have additional needs. The change will be unfair on them, and they will end up falling out of the system completely, which will cost the system more in the long run.

The last part of it — I say this to you, Chris, with your experience as a youth worker — is the huge gap in youth work outside school when it comes to children with additional needs, whether in the community and voluntary sector or the statutory sector. There are just not enough opportunities and the Education Authority and the Department are writing no, or not enough, specifications.

In those three key areas, what sort of changes could be made in a policy directive?

Mr Quinn: We will take those one at a time. We were chatting about the SEN-first approach in the car on the way here. I am getting feedback that placement planning is now beginning in November. That is earlier than in previous years, but I do not accept that it is enough. It does not give an awful lot of time before the summer break, and Christmas is in the middle of that. As I said, a lot of the time we are dealing with parents who are in crisis as they wait for a placement.

I invite Joanne to come in on the placement process.

Ms McGurk: We discussed the process for children and young people without special educational needs, how they are notified first and how there is an annual review process. There is scope to make sure that children's needs are known and factored into placements in the years ahead. Often, the children we deal with require routine and consistent preparation, much more than those without special educational needs, so there is a strong argument for those children to be placed first. We have talked about that a lot. It is a concern. There is a responsibility to provide all children with an education. There needs to be provision so that all children, including those with special educational needs, have a placement in school in September. If there was not enough capacity in mainstream schools, there would be uproar. I know that I am, essentially, repeating what you said to us, Danny, but there is an obligation in legislation to have that provision for all children, including those with special educational needs. Rather than a year-on-year approach, what is needed is a system-wide approach to make sure that the necessary capacity exists.

Chris talked about understanding capacity and gathering the data. There is concern there. When I look at casework, I see cases of children aged four and a half who have had a couple of months in school. At that stage, it is identified that the placements are not meeting their needs — they are having meltdowns and are on reduced timetables. There will be clear evidence from Health, maybe from a year or two before, that it was likely that that would happen. In fact, in some of my casework, it is on record, in a letter from a health professional from a year or two beforehand, that it was quite likely that the child would need additional support in school, yet they have not been referred to the statementing process.

There is a need to have coordination across Departments. I would ask that, in its inquiry, the Committee considers how Health can practically refer children to the Education Authority or the education system. There is legislation that places an obligation on it to do that, but I wonder what the route is, practically, for health practitioners, GPs and health visitors who see those children in the early stages of their lives. We sometimes get feedback from health practitioners and allied health professionals (AHPs) that they are not always encouraged to make those referrals.

Mr Quinn: If there is a change that could be made, it is in the area of early diagnosis. When I talk to EA and DE, I sometimes feel that the fact that many special educational needs can be spotted at a very early stage is lost. Social work practitioners and childcare workers will testify to that. For some reason, however, Health and Education are not talking to each other. As I said, two years old is a reasonable age at which to start planning for that. That is a point that we want to strike home.

On your other two questions —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Briefly, as we are up against it with time.

Mr Quinn: I will respond on youth work, first. There is an issue there. I wrote to EA quite a while ago on whether its specs allow for special educational needs provision through youth work. At that time, there was no provision. I am due to meet with EA and DE on youth work funding and policy in the next few weeks, and I will bring that up again then.

There is a disparity in what voluntary sector organisations can avail themselves of compared with statutory Education Authority youth work settings. In some of the statutory settings, you can see physical infrastructure to support children with special educational needs.

The funding that EOTAS is in receipt of and, in particular, the disparity between voluntary sector provision and that in the statutory sector needs to be looked at. That issue will probably come to you through your constituency work anyway, because I know that that is a concern.

Can you clarify your question about referrals?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): This will have to be very brief, as we are out of time.

Mr Baker: There are going to be referrals stopping to some of the EOTAS centres coming up. That is a recent decision by the EA to save money. If you are prioritising children with special or additional needs —. A lot of the kids I know who go into those settings have either been late in getting a diagnosis or fell out of the school system and got back in that way. Again, that is disadvantaging the most disadvantaged.

Mr Quinn: Apologies; I understand now. That is an alarm bell, because it goes against what the EA is saying about SEN. You are displacing those children. Where will they be placed if not in EOTAS settings?

Ms McGurk: We cannot allow resources to drive this. It has to be child-centred and based on identification of need. It has to be what is needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is great. Apologies, I do not like cutting across witnesses; it is just that we are up against it with time.

David, you asked to respond to something that Danny said. I want to be clear: this is a response to what has been said. You have your own question, and, if we go over time, I will reflect that in how much time you get for your own question, David.

Mr Brooks: That is fair enough, Chair. I did not want to interrupt while Danny was asking his questions, because they were worthwhile questions and well worth hearing the answers to, but prefacing them with a jibe at Richard Pengelly about Wimbledon was inappropriate. Whether it is chief executives, permanent secretaries or MLAs, we all go on holiday and go to sporting events and concerts during our time off. People are entitled to do that outside their professional role without its being brought up in the Committee as a jibe. I was not trying to lock horns with Danny, but it was —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is noted. Danny can give a response.

Mr Baker: It was not a jibe. My point is that, if hundreds of mainstream children were not placed a week before we went into recess and before schools closed — they had no place, by the way, when everyone was placed back in April — they would not have taken those trips. Not a chance. That is my view on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Two different views on that matter. That is noted for the record.

Mrs Guy: Thank you as usual, folks, for your contribution. Last week, I got an update on placements for 2026, and there is a need for 950 additional places. The update was that they have initiated progress on 350 of those places, so we are already looking at another crisis in placements in January. You referenced in your evidence the need for a more strategic approach to this. Can you expand on that? Do you see any evidence right now that that shift is happening?

Mr Quinn: I do not want to oversimplify this, but the key is early intervention and planning at an early stage. We have been consistent in feeding that back to the Education Authority and others, so it should not be a surprise. It should not be a surprise that, in January 2026, there are 950 children who need placements in September 2026. Parents and professionals working in those various sectors will know that, so it feels — forgive me for being blunt about this — that we are in this everlasting game of whack-a-mole and are moving pawns about a chessboard or building Lego blocks — whatever metaphor you want to use. Whilst, as I say, we need to focus on the physical bricks and mortar and build more spaces for children, we need to get out of this cycle, so the planning needs to happen early. I know that Joanne has been consistent in saying that before my time in NICCY. This is the same thing. Joanne, do you want to add anything to that?

Ms McGurk: It probably goes back to my earlier point about the data: get it as early as possible, identify your needs and the needs of children in school, and plan for that as early as you possibly can. We know that not all children's special educational needs will become apparent until they are at school, but a large proportion can be planned for, and data can be tracked to identify what specialisms are going to be needed with regard to professional services. It is about early identification and then strategically planning in response to that, and then monitoring the right data so that you are able to adapt and change your approach, as needed.

Mrs Guy: I just want to add that I know that the EA is working on that. I am not suggesting that anybody is sitting on their hands and not trying to address that need for 2026. We have an issue that we were told in a briefing from the EA previously that they are almost tapped out with regard to the schools that are coming forward to help with this. The Minister suggested last year that he has the opportunity and the power to direct schools. What do you think about the Minister potentially using that power? I know that it is a difficult one.

Mr Quinn: I think that we need to rely more heavily on the expertise of the people working day-to-day with those children and in their communities. School leaders will be able to inform this better than most. It is regrettable that, sometimes, the narrative seems to be that schools are bad for not taking on SPiMS and that teachers are bad for not doing it. We have an educational workforce who are working in very difficult circumstances. With regard to legislating for it, my aspiration is that every school is an inclusive school. Every school should be able to cater for a child's needs, but bearing in mind that sometimes a child's needs might be so severe that they need alternative provision. That is why I feel strongly about having a policy driver behind it, because if we do not, we are going to keep going in this cycle. I cannot really give a clear answer at the moment on whether schools should be forced, but it is something that we will take away.

Ms McGurk: It is difficult in the current system when school leaders are hearing concerning reports about SPiMS. They are not always getting the support and resources that they need, and they are in a difficult position. Chris is right, you need to listen to the leaders and the professionals on the ground.

Mr Quinn: You are quite right. The support issue was something that I did not mention. We often hear that there is a fear of a lack of support when a SPiMS gets set up, and that is a barrier.

Mrs Guy: Yet the messaging is that you will get all the support that you need. Sometimes that is the case, but again, you will be aware of circumstances where schools have not felt that they got the support that they needed. That is all from me, so thank you both.

Ms Hunter: Thank you to the panel for being here today. We always learn something new when you come to the Committee, so thank you. You touched on the importance of addressing emotion-based school avoidance. It is a massive issue, and I know that you are both very passionate about it. Could you give a bit more information on that and what you have done so far? I know that it is something that you are really keen to see some work on.

Mr Quinn: Thank you, Cara. We are conducting a bit of research on that as we speak. My colleague Dr Arlene Robertson would have been here with us today, but she is up to her eyes looking at this piece of work. We are hoping to publish that later in this calendar year. At the moment, Arlene is carrying out her fieldwork — interviews with stakeholders, parents and people who work with children and young people. We will also be engaging directly with children and young people. We are acutely aware that, often, data gets circulated, and we really want to get behind that data and understand why children are experiencing this. Perhaps, when we have more information on the findings of that research, we can come back to the Committee and present on it. I am sure that Arlene would be very happy to speak with you directly, because I know that it is something that you have worked on in the past.

Ms Hunter: Brilliant. Thank you so much. Just on that note, when I am speaking with young people, there tends to be a group of children who suspect themselves as having ADHD, autism or both, but they have yet to get an assessment. They feel like they fall into the gaps; they do not get the right support in the classroom, and they might not want to attend school as a result. I wonder whether you have engagement with those pupils and their parents around that issue — those children who have yet to get an assessment or a diagnosis and who experience trouble in the classroom setting?

Ms McGurk: Thank you very much for the question, Cara. It is something that we encounter quite a lot. There sometimes is a misunderstanding that you require a diagnosis to access support in school. Your special educational needs, and the provision, should be based on how you present. Of course, the diagnosis will at times unlock, essentially, health support, but how you present in school should allow school provision. We certainly advise along those lines, and a lot of children are impacted on by long waiting lists that are preventing them from accessing the health support that they need because, of course, the school and education support need to work together for the best outcome for the child or young person.

Ms Hunter: That is really helpful.

Mr Quinn: The waiting list is an issue that I took out of my briefing, but I am glad that it has come up, because those waiting times in health definitely have an impact. It also relates to misdiagnosis. Sometimes the diagnosis can be wrong because the ADHD or autism diagnosis has not yet been acquired.

Ms Hunter: Many without that diagnosis just feel lost and that they cannot focus. They do not feel empowered in a learning environment, so it is really good that that is on the agenda and is being explored.

Other members have asked my questions about reduced timetables, an issue which is really concerning. Lastly, one of the things that I am keen to see is the Department of Education and the Minister, when he makes changes such as we have seen with TransformED, ensuring that we are trauma-informed when we are talking about our children and their lived experience. I have raised concern about who falls under the definition of "educational disadvantage". On a scale from one to 10, if possible, can you rate how you think the Department and this Minister take a trauma-informed approach? There is a gap there. When I see children and the young people who I speak with, they do not feel understood and they have these complexities in the home that maybe their teachers do not know of or do not understand. When we see words like "educational disadvantage", I just see that those children are not being heard or listened to.

Mr Quinn: It is a really good question, Cara. I do not feel that I am qualified at this point to give the Minister a rating. However, a really good bit of research was recently published by Dr Karen McAlister through the Simon Community. Her research was very much focused on the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), albeit in the context of housing. It showed some stark findings and, in particular, how children and young people from here are different from their peers in that we are living in a society that is emerging from conflict. It is about the ongoing legacy and the impact that power and control in communities is still having on ACEs. That might be an interesting one for you to look at.

As to how the Minister, the Department and the Education Authority are grappling with the issue, I argue strongly that our teaching and non-teaching staff should be trained in trauma-informed practice. We know a lot more about it now, and there is a lot of work in that field. Maybe it is something that we can look at further under your specific question. Unless, Joanne, you want to rate the Minister? [Laughter.]

Ms McGurk: I will join you in not doing that, Chris.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Just a one to 10 is fine if you want to go there.

Ms McGurk: It is a really important question, because we hear it time and time again. It is important that we are trauma-informed when we deal with children and young people, and also that we recognise that SEN does not sit alone. Investment in children and young people, with SEN or otherwise, will have such benefits for their future and society in general.

Ms Hunter: That is brilliant. Thank you all. Those are my questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David, you are the last in.

Mr Brooks: Thank you for your answers so far. We have covered a lot of the main ground. I happen to think that this is an area where there are not great chasms between the different parties. Everybody wants to see better SEN provision for our children. It is right that we have proper scrutiny of that, but most people want to head in the same direction on this. When talking about whether schools should be compelled, it is right that some schools have concerns about whether they will be supported and need to be reassured. It is also right that some schools are resistant to providing those services, and it is not limited to grammar schools. When the Minister and the officials last appeared before the Committee, they said that several schools had put their hands up to try and help with that, which is positive.

I have only one, or possibly two, questions, because a lot of the main questions have been answered. On the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, the Committee has grappled and been frustrated, at times, in trying to see greater collaboration between Education and Health. I will not speak for the rest of the Committee, but I have felt that, at times, officials have not wanted to throw their colleagues under the bus, but there seems to be greater resistance or more complexity on the Health side. There may be a good reason that has stopped some of the team from really properly coming together. In your experience of dealing with complex cases, can you give some insight into where there needs to be, and could be, greater collaboration in the spirit of opening up and understanding that there are complexities and difficulties in doing that?

Mr Quinn: Joanne asked a great question earlier about how Health and Education can collaborate better.

Ms McGurk: When it does happen in individual cases, it is positive. There are examples of children who have been absent from education, and a multidisciplinary team has been convened where Health and Education can work together, and there have been positive outcomes for their education, life at home and more stable placements. We also see that, at times, there are not enough resources or provision to make that work. You asked about where it is not working —.

Mr Brooks: We have looked at the teams, and I felt that a Health team and an Education team were being built up, and they might meet occasionally, but they are not forming one team. When we talked about that in the past, we wanted to see genuine collaboration and the coming together of those teams. That is not to say that good work is not being done, and we are not in those positions. I think that resource and the silo mentality that has been criticised have a huge amount to do with it. It is a reality that Departments do not have enough resources, and they worry about where that can lead if they go down that path. Are you seeing progress on that? If not, where are the obstacles, and where can it be improved?

Ms McGurk: Information-sharing seems to be such a barrier, and that is key because it informs the amount of SEN support, what is needed and the provider itself. That is one of the key problems. There are a lot of people who want it to happen, and they are working to make it happen. A lot of the time, it is a resource issue. The intention is for Health to become part of the local impact teams, but it does not seem to have happened, and it really needs to happen. It is often missed that, if we do not intervene early — perhaps it is not missed. If we do not intervene early, we end up with more difficult needs further down the line, and the resource issue becomes much bigger. We need to step back and look at the resource, if that is the reason, and ask about the cost of doing nothing or not doing enough in the early stages.

Mr Brooks: I was primarily thinking about the impact, but thank you for the insight.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Just a couple of things on that. I will pick up on a comment that you referenced earlier. It is not often the way that it is framed, but there is often a sense that Education is a drain on Health resources and is trying to draw Health into the system. We get that narrative, and that resources are stretched. I do not doubt that resources are stretched in access to AHPs and all that, but your framing is that there needs to be a mechanism for Health to refer into Education as an early indication that there is an additional need and that that should be done early. I am not sure whether such a mechanism exists or, if it does, whether it is clear or whether all trusts operate in the same way. That is something tangible that we can take away to see how that can be done and who can do it. Is it only health visitors, or can social workers and GPs do it? That is really important for data-sharing.

Ms McGurk: I will come in quickly on that point. Health practitioners can certainly refer for statutory assessment, but I am talking about it happening earlier, further upstream.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): More early indication that there is likely to be an additional need so that services can be planned —

Ms McGurk: Exactly.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — rather than saying that an individual child needs something now. It is about shifting that so that it is not just about individual children's needs but helping the system to plan.

Mr Quinn: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That was really helpful. I have a final point on that. The EA might speak to this in more detail later. When we have had the EA at the Committee, its focus has very much been on the fact that it has limited resources and so it can only do so much. On transformation, it is really looking at what the support model looks like for a child who receives a statement. It thinks that that is where it can get really substantial and meaningful reform. I am not hearing so much about it thinking about that early stuff, including even preschool interventions. Where do you sit on that? If you had that limited budget, would you be saying to get it into the early interventions or into the children who need support and are already in the system? Maybe that is not a fair question.

Mr Quinn: These are the things that keep me awake at night, to be honest. That is a good question. I feel strongly that, if that early intervention bit is got right, it will save money and improve outcomes for children and families. We definitely need to invest more in early intervention, but we need to find a way to do it that does not disadvantage children who are already in the system. Some of those things could be game changers. You asked a question about information-sharing at an early stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It does not have to be hugely expensive.

Mr Quinn: No. While a childminder or health visitor cannot spot everything, they can spot signs. Let us get the process started with babies and infants rather than waiting until they are four and it is November to try to get them a place for the following September.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I do not want to take up too much more time, because everyone else has been pushed for time. Thank you for your evidence. As always, lots of things cropped up that probably fall outside the scope of the inquiry. We may want to hear from you again on those. The issue of attendance comes up consistently, and we look forward to seeing that research. We have DE and EA coming in on the issue of attendance in the next number of weeks, so your research could be timely and align with that. We will be in touch. Thank you both.