Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You are all very welcome today. We have Deirdre Ward, director of SEN strategic policy in the Department of Education; Elaine Craig, director of SEN statutory and educational psychology service in the Education Authority (EA); Julie McBride, head of special education review team in the Department of Education; and Tracey Logan, interim head of SEND statutory services in the EA. If I got any job titles wrong, feel free to correct them.

First things first, apologies for the delay. We had evidence sessions that, despite best efforts to keep to time, ran over. I am not sure whether you followed any of the sessions. There were wide-ranging discussions about a range of aspects of SEN reform. I apologise for the delay and for keeping you waiting. At this stage, bearing time in mind, I will hand over to you for any opening remarks. I ask you to keep them as brief as possible. There is probably an appetite to get to questions and answers at this stage. I will hand over to you, Deirdre, I assume, to lead.

Ms Deirdre Ward (Department of Education): Yes, it is me. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to attend today, along with our colleagues from the Education Authority, to support the Committee in its scrutiny of the SEN regulations.

The Department recognises the considerable stakeholder interest generated through the consultation process and fully acknowledges the strength of feeling being expressed. We are committed to engaging constructively with the Committee and other stakeholders on the issues raised. In that regard, we met representatives from the Children's Law Centre (CLC) on 11 May to hear and discuss their concerns. While it was not possible to reach consensus on every single issue, the Department hopes that the CLC has a clearer understanding of the rationale underpinning the decisions made.

The Committee has received a joint response from the Department and the Education Authority addressing the 45 questions raised during the briefing provided by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), and we trust that that has provided the Committee with the assurance that officials have taken a thorough and carefully considered approach to the outworkings and impact of the SEN regulations, including the provision of extensive training and support for schools. While we will endeavour to address as many additional concerns as possible during today's session, if we are unable to provide a full response to any concern, we will follow up with a written response.

The Department recognises that the proposed implementation of the SEN regulations is taking place at a time of significant change across the education system, and we are mindful of the challenges that that presents for all involved. We are carefully considering the feedback received from key stakeholder groups as we reflect on the most appropriate way forward. We remain firmly committed to the timely implementation of the regulations and to ensuring that strengthened support for children and young people with SEN and the new rights for parents and children over compulsory school age are realised without unnecessary delay. At the same time, we will continue to listen carefully to stakeholders as we move forward.

That was my opening statement. We recognise that the questions will be the important bit today. There was a question from the Committee, through the Clerk, about doing a comparison between the old regulations and the new ones. We have that document. It is, because of changes in formats, a bit messy, but we are very happy to supply that to allow easier comparison, if that is helpful.

Mr Sheehan: Is that a document with tracked changes?

Ms Ward: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: Has the CLC got a copy of that?

Ms Julie McBride (Department of Education): I have said that I will share it with CLC, yes. I put it together only last night.

Mr Sheehan: Sorry, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is absolutely fine. That is very much appreciated. It is important to put on record that a lot of correspondence has come your way on these regs and that there has been a quick turnaround on that. We are keen to work with you during the scrutiny process for the regs.

We have been balancing today's evidence sessions between the formal legislative scrutiny of the SEN regulations and how they connect to the wider SEN reforms. Members and witnesses have all probably struggled to keep on a single track, because everything is so interconnected. We are all conscious of that. You cannot really separate them cleanly.

I will begin by asking a broad question. We heard during today's earlier evidence sessions that there may be a time pressure. September 2026 is when it should be agreed that these regs, having gone through all the processes in the Assembly, be on the statute book. There is also a sense in Committee that there is a lot of work to do on them, not because we are saying that there is, fundamentally, an issue, but we are conscious that we are dealing with primary legislation that is 10 years old. We are trying to make sure that we are looking at regulations that reflect the intentions of the Assembly at the time. We are trying to connect two things over a 10-year period and to understand what those regulations will really mean operationally when they come into force with the system as it is now. Holding those two things in tension is not easy. I do not want to speak for the whole Committee, but my sense is that it may take time. On that basis, what will happen if the Committee decides that it needs to take substantially more time — potentially beyond the summer recess — thereby making the September date unfeasible? I do not ask that as a loaded question. From your perspective of delivering SEN reform, what would that mean for what you are able to do and, maybe, what you are not able to do?

Ms Ward: We fully respect the Committee's role in the scrutiny process. Yes, it has been too long: 10 years from primary legislation to get to where we are with regulations is too long. We should get into a timetable of doing regulations and primary legislation more often. They need to keep pace with what children need and what schools need, so that length of time is not helpful in taking things forward. That said, we will want to understand the impact that that would have on the new offering that would come through in the regulations: the new mediation service; the challenging timescales for assessment; and the increased use of mediation in appeals of annual assessments. We do not want to lose the opportunity to do that, but we need to proceed with other SEN reform projects that have already begun. We will have to keep the projects that have already begun, and further work that we have on board, moving forward, whether or not the regulations come into play. We understand the need for proper scrutiny, so, although we would be a little disappointed, we understand the role.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I want to be clear. Speaking entirely as a member of the Committee and not for the Committee, because we have not reached a firm position on it, my sense is that nobody has any interest in being obstructive just for the sake of it. To me, it feels that, when the Question is put on the regulations, it would be much better if everyone could say yes rather than, "We do not know yet"—.

Ms Ward: Sure.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — or for it to land on the Floor of the Assembly only to be voted down. I am of a mind to try to work through a process whereby we can get the regulations to a point that everybody is comfortable with, but that is a big task.

Ms McBride: We agree with that. We would not want to go to the Assembly with your not being content with what we are proposing.

Ms Ward: Of course not, no.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No, there seems to be no point in embarking on that course.

Ms Ward: No, there is no point.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am conscious of time, and I imagine that other members will probably cover the broader aspects of the evidence that we heard today, so I will leave that for them.

I want to ask a couple of specific questions on the regulations and pick up on your responses, particularly on the role of parents. There may be a question of semantics around whether we call it "parental advice" or something else. I am not hung up on the semantics, but I have a concern: if the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 confirms that parents absolutely have a fundamental right to have their information included in that process, would it not be wise to settle some of those concerns around parental involvement in the process and include that in the regulations to make it expressly clear that their views will be sought in every case? At the minute, it sits at something like their having the right to express their views, but I would like to see something that moves closer to their views "will" be sought, and, moving on from that, an undertaking in the regulations that, whatever information a parent gives and whatever submissions a parent makes, those will be provided to the organisations providing the formal advice. I am not sure what you gain in confidence in the system by not including that, whereas I am pretty clear that, across the board in this Committee, we are all agreed that the role of parents is crucial. Can you speak to that?

Ms Ward: From our perspective, the change in the terminology around advice is procedural not substantive.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am not hung up on that.

Ms Ward: We also recognise the anxiety that parents and others have in the ecosystem, and we recognise that parental insight is critical to understanding a child's needs. With regard to changing the regulation in the way that you are suggesting, after this session and further feedback, we will consider everything that we have heard. We will reflect on that and see what we can address, where it is wise to do so, and what scope we have in the primary legislation to make those changes.

Ms McBride: The primary legislation is extremely clear. The parents' views must be sought. We are 100% sure that that will happen in every single case. In the statement, there is a piece where the parents' information must go in. I know that there has been a bit of talk around it. Yes, we have moved from "advice" to "information", and there is a slight difference between the two sets of regulations, but the primary legislation is the primary legislation. We must seek the views of the parents, and we are 100% sure that that advice will be taken into consideration and will be included in the statement.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK. Following discussions with the Clerk, we are likely to have a Committee session next week to discuss specific regulations. We may need to provide feedback, but I am content for that to be taken away at that stage. I will ask one other question, and it is probably slightly broader. There are lots of areas where the need for Health to engage is peppered all the way through. I am not asking you to have a pop at colleagues, and I am not having a pop at them, as we understand the resource pressures and that everything is stretched, but how confident are you, with the regs in their current form, that Health can bring to the table what is needed to ensure that there is relevant cooperation? How confident are you that the relevant services will go into schools when they are needed, that the relevant transition planning will happen in a timely way and that, in all those areas where Health is required, the relevant advice will be provided in a timely way so that we are not routinely putting statements through without Health advice when it is clearly needed? I see a real risk in that. Can you give the Committee any assurance on how we will ensure that Education and Health are working together as effectively as they possibly can to give these effect?

Ms McBride: There is a specific article in the 1996 Order — do not ask me the number, because I will get it wrong; it might be 12 — that is solely for Health and its responsibilities. That runs through the entire SEN process. It is not just in the statutory assessment or statementing. The regulations and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 are very clear about Health's role in transitioning and in providing support.

During the process, we have been consulting and meeting Health about its duties and what it needs to provide, so it is fully aware of that. I cannot give you a 100% guarantee that it will be able to deliver that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Are the Department of Health's duties that sit in the Act framed in such a way that it is "insofar as it has the resource to do so"?

Ms McBride: It is in primary legislation: the 1996 Order. It is not amended by the 2016 Act, so there is nothing that we can do about that. The primary legislation mentions the resources available.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will ask one final question, and then I will hand over to members. There has been a lot of discussion today about getting it right. Do we need to amend primary legislation so that it moves beyond "insofar as Health has resource", or whatever the phrase is, to say that you both share duties in the space? I am thinking of the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. I do not imagine that there is any prospect in this mandate, but is that live and on the table? It feels to me that, as long as it is down to Health saying that it does not have the cash or the staff, it will not happen.

Ms Ward: We will consider that. I made the point that we need to refresh primary legislation and regulations much more often: they need to reflect what is happening in the ecosystem. It is potentially something to look at for the future, but, as for the Department of Education and the Department of Health working closely, we do. We meet very often. We are taking forward work on sustainable nursing support for special schools, starting with the review of nursing that was done in special schools. We are doing considerable work around data sharing to understand how we can identify earlier children who have needs and maybe get health visitors' views on how we can get that information-sharing piece moved forward. There is a considerable volume of work in that space. Is it visible yet to the Committee? Probably not, but it is moving forward.

Is it moving forward at the pace that we would all wish it to? Maybe not, but, again, that could be a capacity and bandwidth issue on both sides. My colleagues in the Department of Health, Health and Social Care (HSC) and the Public Health Agency (PHA) are committed to working with us to achieve better together.

Ms Tracey Logan (Education Authority): At the operational level, each health trust has a SEN coordinator and a data analyst. The operational teams within our teams meet them monthly or, if there are exceptional circumstances, fortnightly. We are constantly monitoring that, and they monitor their stats on the return of advice.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): With the regulations, there is likely to be stuff that comes back formally. I am particularly concerned about the 14-week timescale for Health. I have a real concern that we will routinely see statements that do not have the information that is needed to reflect the child's needs and that we are building that into the regulations, but the primary legislation is what it is.

I will bring in the Deputy Chair. I imagine that he may want to raise the subject of the joint Health and Education oversight group, which he mentioned at the start of the meeting, because my understanding is that the statistics are not great and that it has not been particularly meaningful.

Mr Sheehan: That is my first question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will pass over to the Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: Do any of you sit on the oversight group?

Ms Ward: Yes, I do.

Mr Sheehan: It has met six or eight times in two and a half years.

Ms Ward: The joint oversight group has met fortnightly since around Christmas.

Mr Sheehan: It has met fortnightly since Christmas. I have an answer from the Minister to a question for written answer:

Ms Ward: I joined only in —.

Mr Sheehan: Going by what you said, it should have met more than eight times.

Ms Ward: It has been meeting very frequently since Christmas. As well as the joint oversight group, a number of separate Health and Education groups meet. There is a data group, a group working on summer schemes and a group working on the project initiation document (PID) and the actions from the nursing review. Quite a number of meetings feed back into the joint oversight group, and, for example, there is a meeting next week.

Mr Sheehan: Maybe we need to write and ask for more information. If you say that the group has met fortnightly, the Minister's information cannot be accurate. Since when has it been meeting fortnightly? Did you say before Christmas?

Ms Ward: Since just about Christmas time.

Mr Sheehan: OK. In that four and a half months, there should have been at least nine meetings, and we have been told that there have been eight meetings since March 2024. There is a discrepancy.

Ms Ward: Around Easter, one meeting was cancelled.

Mr Sheehan: That brings it down to eight meetings since Christmas, but we have been told that there have been eight meetings since March 2024, which is more than two years ago.

Ms Ward: I need to check that information. It was only around that time that I came into the Department, so I am not aware of that, but I will check.

Mr Sheehan: The number of meetings is one thing; the output is another. The cupboard seems to be pretty bare when it comes to output from the group. Can you tell me exactly what has been achieved?

Ms Ward: There are some actions to be taken forward in relation to the review of nursing in special schools.

Mr Sheehan: May I stop you there? First, tell us what has been achieved, and then we can talk about the actions that are being taken forward.

Ms Ward: The project document to take forward all the actions of this review has been agreed, and the work streams have been assigned. There has been work on how we share and handle the data, and that is being taken forward by statisticians on both sides. That work will be reported next week — there is to be a presentation — and we will see where that takes us. There has also been joint work on summer schemes.

Mr Sheehan: According to the Minister, the group has been operational since March 2024, and I am just going by what he has said. What has the group actually done in over two years? What can you point to as its achievements, not actions that are in progress or meetings that will take place? What has actually been achieved? For example, there needed to be massive publicity around the summer scheme for special schools before the two Ministers even lifted the phone to each other. Was the group not working on that beforehand?

Ms Ward: There was some information sharing before the Ministers engaged, but to —.

Mr Sheehan: I apologise for stopping you, Deirdre, but you are using jargon. You said, "There was some information sharing". I am asking you what the group has actually done. What can you point to as being your achievements?

Ms Ward: The summer schemes will run this year, and that is because of the work that has been done between the two —.

Mr Sheehan: Deirdre, let me stop you there. That has nothing to do with work that was done by that group. That came about as a result of publicity, the recall of the Assembly and the anger of parents and families at the summer schemes being cancelled. It had nothing to do with the group that you are part of.

Ms Ward: Part of the result of that work is that there will be nursing support for the summer scheme delivery so that we can ensure the safety of all the children who attend.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Fair enough. I will move on to a more general question —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): A brief one, Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: — about the SEN regs. I have said this publicly previously: if ever I get an issue in my constituency to do with children with SEN that I cannot deal with and that the EA or the Department will not deal with, my go-to organisation is the Children's Law Centre — specifically Rachel Hogan, if I can get hold of her. Rachel has not just great expertise but great passion and compassion for the clients whom she deals with. In my view, she is a person of the highest integrity. Representatives from the Children's Law Centre told the Committee that they see problems with the regs, that they see there being unintended consequences and that some of the regulations are potentially unlawful —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Is there a question there, Deputy Chair?

Mr Sheehan: Why, then, should I listen to the Department or the EA over and above the Children's Law Centre? I can tell you this: at not just this Committee but other Committees that I have been on, we have listened to officials misleading us, telling us lies and gaslighting us. I understand that officials are here at the direction of the Minister and that they will follow the direction that the Minister has given, but why should I or anybody else here listen to officials rather than to the Children's Law Centre, given its excellent reputation?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have to ask that you give as brief a response as possible, but, obviously, you have the right to answer.

Ms Ward: I think that it is very helpful to get input from the Children's Law Centre, given its expertise. That is why we sat with its representatives for quite a number of hours and worked through many of the concerns that they had raised in their letter. We also met them in advance of their attending the Committee. They were briefed for quite a long time on the regulations. There are some points on which there is not a consensus view, but that does not mean that we are not respectfully listening to them. We had some legal advice on some of the points about which they were unhappy, but we work well with the Children's Law Centre and very much respect its opinion. We seek advice from and engagement with it.

Mr Sheehan: Are you happy to take its advice that the process should be paused so that more scrutiny can take place?

Ms Ward: It is for the Committee to make a decision on that.

Mr Sheehan: What is your view?

Ms Ward: I have said already that my view is that we would be disappointed if the regulations could not go forward, but it is the Committee's role to make that decision.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. I have to move on to the next member.

Mr Baker: I will follow on from Pat's question. It was clear from the session with the Children's Law Centre representatives last Wednesday — I know that you met them last Monday — that they want a pause. We heard the same from the witnesses in our previous evidence sessions today. I know that you did not hear those sessions, but I suspect that you have watched last week's Committee session, in which we went into great detail. I cannot see this going any other way than the Committee recommending that there is a pause. However, a part of that pause needs to be re-engagement and more work with the Children's Law Centre so that it can then give us an assurance that it is happy for this to go forward. It pointed out that some of the changes have happened through the back door and that you, be that the Minister, the Department or the EA, have pushed ahead with changes that probably should not have been made, because the regs have not been scrutinised. What is your view on that?

Ms McBride: You are talking about the code of practice and its three stages. Last week, Rachel mentioned that it was complicated: the current code is five stages, and the draft code is three stages. Rachel may disagree with this, but the support provided under the current code is termed "continuum of provision". Under the new code, it is "the graduated response framework". It is the same thing, but the graduated response framework provides much more information for schools on how they implement that support, as well as information for others on how the support is provided. I do not agree that we are bringing it in through the back door. We are trying to provide schools with the guidance and advice that they have asked for.

Mr Baker: We have seen only the code of practice, and the SEN regs have not been scrutinised or cleared.

To be honest, I lost trust in the Minister a long time ago. I listen to the parents who come through my constituency office. I have a lot of compassion, and I do my best to represent them. There is a fear and a certain perception among them. I have been trying to educate myself on what has been going on across the water. It has been flagged by the Children's Law Centre and was flagged again today that legal protections could be lost for children with complex needs who need support. That needs to be addressed. If legal protections are to be removed for children with additional complex needs, that is serious. That is what is going on across the water. That may be denied, but that is certainly the indication coming through from advocacy groups across the water. That is a fear that I have: if you strip away a child's right, the support will not be there, they will be left to rot at home and, ultimately, you will save money. That is where the mistrust is growing. You need to re-engage with the likes of the Children's Law Centre and the unions because, if we cannot get a green light from them, there is no way that you will have MLAs walking through the Lobby to support this. You need the support of MLAs to push forward the proposed changes. No one is arguing that reform is not needed. The problem is that the reform must be progressive to support families, not regressive, as we are seeing across the water.

Ms McBride: I agree with you, 100%, but I do not understand what you mean when you say that we are removing legal protections. Sorry.

Mr Baker: The Children's Law Centre and the unions flagged the potential for unlawful consequences from the SEN regs and the code of practice and stated that the responsibility would fall more on the schools than on the Education Authority. They have flagged that. I will be honest: I have no legal background whatsoever, but I will take the word of the Children's Law Centre and work alongside it. That is who I will be guided by. If it is not comfortable after it has re-engaged with you — I hope that you are up for the pause —.

Ms Ward: We are.

Ms McBride: We have given the CLC that commitment.

Mr Baker: That is what I want to hear. When the CLC comes back in, I want to hear that that improvement is there and that it is confident. I will then be confident when I represent the constituents who elect me to be here to be their voice.

Ms McBride: We need to understand a bit more from CLC exactly what it means by legal protections.

Mr Baker: The unions have also said that they are fearful — the school leaders are very fearful — that more of the onus is being put on schools than on the Education Authority and that they are the ones that will be dragged through the courts.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will draw that to a close. The next member who has indicated is Michelle.

Mrs Guy: Thanks, folks. I will start with a question on the regs. Correct me if I am wrong — I am not a lawyer either — but my understanding is that, if you do not get the Health input within the 14-week time frame, you will proceed with the statement anyway. I am concerned that the quality of the provision and the interventions for a child in that context will not be adequate, or certainly not as effective as they would be with that Health intervention.

Ms Logan: Michelle, you have to put it in the context of whether or not we are receiving medical advice at this minute in time. We receive medical advice routinely for every statutory assessment that we carry out, or else we get an indication from Health as to what we can expect. The number of statements that we have had to issue without medical advice is very small. If it does then come in, the statement can be amended; there is no particular difficulty with that. For me, this is closing it off. There have been concerns for a number of years about the number of statements that go beyond the 26-week period for issuing a final statement. A lot of that was where there was no upper time frame to close off that decision-making period. As I said earlier, we are working with the Health SEN coordinators on the requesting and receipt of that advice, bringing it in within their timescales and looking at them on a regular basis to identify where the difficulties are. I do not see that as a big issue — it is not currently an issue — and I do not see why we would assume that it is going to be a bigger issue if we close it off and have an upper timescale for it.

Mrs Guy: I was not inferring that it was a bigger issue. I have been looking at it from the perspective of the child. Are the children getting what they need from their statement, the interventions and these regulations? Are they delivering for the child? It occurred to me that, for kids who do not get an intervention from Health in their statement, theirs will not be as effective as it would be otherwise. However, I do not want to labour that point if you are saying that that is not an issue.

Ms Logan: By delaying getting the statement, we are delaying other types of support that might be available. I take on board what you are saying about the Health advice, but that can come subsequently. If you do not have an upper time frame and you do not have a statement at all, none of the other supports are there. It is better to get something and move it forward and review it.

Mrs Guy: That is the point that you are making generally about the concerns around the 14 weeks — that everything pushes to the 14 weeks. You are saying that that will draw a line in the sand that is not there right now, which will result in more protection for the child in terms of getting a statement. Are you monitoring those numbers right now so that we will be able to see the difference?

Ms Logan: Yes. There are data analysts in each of the health trusts. There are fortnightly meetings between each of the health trusts and our office managers.

Mrs Guy: I will raise some of the points that were raised with us in the previous briefing. It was an excellent evidence session. We are now more informed because of the perspective that was put to us. There was a proposal for a way forward. The suggestion was that we pause the wider changes; we embed the changes that have already been made; we develop a road map; and we ensure that Health is involved and we work together to deliver. That sounds like a very controlled way to manage the reforms, whereas what we hear at the minute is that it all seems overwhelming and chaotic. Is that something that you have considered, or would consider, as a way forward? I reiterate that no one is saying "No reform" or "Don't do it", but there is really compelling evidence that the pace and volume of change in the entire school system full stop, not just in SEN, is overwhelming and counterproductive. Will you look, or have you looked, at any of those approaches, especially to the development of the road map in particular?

Ms Ward: The implementation of SEN reform is phased. It is within our gift to look at phasing and do it in a way that is acceptable in the education ecosystem. We will listen to stakeholders. The consultation on the enhanced support model is live until 22 May. My understanding is that there have been over 2,000 responses to that already. All of that needs to be looked at so that we can say, "We have listened, and here is our response to that". To me, "road map" and "phased implementation" sound similar. It is about what that phasing looks like and whether it will be done in a way that stakeholders are content with.

Mrs Guy: Deirdre, you also mentioned the consultation and the responses that you have had to date. There has been criticism that the consultation is leading, and that you will use the weight of those responses to push the reforms forward and not pause and reflect on the evidence that has been given to us by people who feel that their ability to respond to the consultation has been curtailed by its nature. How would you respond to that?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask you to give a brief response.

Ms Ward: The consultation is still live and responses are still coming in. It is within the EA's gift to manage those consultation responses. We will be working really closely with the EA to see what all of that means. Let us remember that about 150 schools are already operating alternate models of support and enhanced support models. Our intention is to work with those schools, starting in September, and move that forward, not necessarily adding lots more schools to that if they are not in that space. Our EA colleagues would say that they are out visiting schools every day, and there are schools that are saying that they are excited to look at offering different ways of supporting children in their environment. We will have to do this alongside what schools feel is reasonable and justified and in a phased way. Will we pause and take a look at all of the consultation responses? Absolutely. It will be right and proper to bring those consultation responses to this Committee.

Mrs Guy: I urge you to listen to the concerns that were expressed in that other session that schools are using the model now and that things are being pushed on to them around the responsibility that would otherwise be with the EA. I am sure that all of that will come through in the consultation, but it is really important that that feedback from the schools is understood.

Ms Ward: OK. Thank you.

Mr Brooks: This has been brought up by two other members, and I just want clarity on it from your end. Last week, the Children's Law Centre said that it believed that some of this was unlawfully delegating powers to schools that rightfully belong with the EA. You said that you had taken your own legal advice and that there are still some areas where there are disagreements between you. Are you satisfied that that is not the case?

Ms Ward: I am satisfied that that is not the case. The regulations seek to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the EA and boards of governors, for example, and to make it a lot clearer what those roles and responsibilities are.

Ms McBride: The primary legislation is very clear that the duties are on the EA.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much for that. You said that schools are already using the enhanced support model and that there was positive feedback. I have said a couple of times now that that is my experience of going into schools in my constituency. Those that have it welcome it, and those that do not would welcome it. Are we seeking to get feedback from those schools that are already using that system? It is important that we hear those voices. Naturally and understandably, parents and other political parties have concerns about one-to-one provision and what that means. We know why people hold that dear and are unsure of the future around that. It is important that we hear from some of those schools. We talked earlier about Belfast Boys' Model School, which is clearly performing well. How can we hear more from those schools about their experiences, both positive and negative, in order to improve the process going forward?

Ms Elaine Craig (Education Authority): We had some of those schools at the conference that the Committee was invited to. They were able to talk about the difference that it made. More importantly than the schools, we had the parents of the children who have been involved, who were rightly sceptical at the start of the process, and then were able to see the difference in their children's lives. That is the most incredible voice that we need to listen to. The only way that we can encourage this is by ensuring that it is evidence-based. If we have that evidence base and we have parents and principals leaning into other principals, that is where this will change.

That has also been part of the whole consultation process. The implementation of the model has been raised at every consultation event and highlighted with principals and, crucially, classroom assistants — who, in my view from any of the consultation events that I have been at, are well up for change. They want this to be in place and they want a secure working environment for themselves, and rightly so. It has also been raised with the parents who came along to the consultation events. On the EA website, alongside all the consultation documents, there are case studies available from both primary and post-primary sectors.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much. I probably should have written more information as I listened to the evidence. The representative from one of the trade unions, who is a special educational needs coordinator (SENCO), said that she had attended two days' training — she said that it was excellent and spoke highly of it — but was disappointed that a day that she was going to use — I think that I am right in saying this — to train other staff on those things was then withdrawn. How can we reassure staff who speak highly of the training that those days will not be withdrawn at short notice?

Ms Logan: The SEN implementation team provided day 3 of the graduated response. At that stage, the hope had been that SENCOs would come to that and get a day's sub cover at school. We only have the funding until the end of June. We have given an assurance that, if there is money beyond that, we will do it at that stage. There is a limited pot at the moment, and we thought that it was more important to get as many SENCOs as possible to at least the first day of training, which is all about how to make a request for statutory assessment and the evidence required for that, because that is what the SENCOs asked us to do for them. Once we get that —.

Mr Brooks: I appreciate that, and I think that we all appreciate the financial pressures that the Department is under, given that we are looking at a £600 million deficit next year. How confident are you that you will be able to deliver that?

Ms McBride: It is totally dependent on the agreement of the Budget for the full financial year. We got permission for three months. We need Executive colleagues to agree on a Budget for the year.

Mr Brooks: That has been heard loud and clear. Do we have any time left, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are running out of time. Thank you, David.

Mrs Mason: On that point, you have explained the rationale behind it and said that it is down to budgetary constraints, but can you understand that, for SENCOs, that is another, for want of a better term, dig in the teeth? You have said, "There you go. You can have it", and then, "Actually, no, we are taking it away from you". That was something positive that they were going to. Can you understand that that is another example of the mistrust out there?

Ms Logan: I fully understand that, and we have communicated that to them at the training. The initial indication when we went out was that there would be a day's training and a day's sub cover at school. We had to prioritise the funding that we were given as to who we were —.

Mrs Mason: I understand that, but they are prioritising their time as well.

Ms Logan: The work that they would have been given in order to help them prepare probably would not have been disseminated until September anyway, because, on the back of that, we would have done a school-development-day pack for their Baker days at the end of August. If the money comes through, we will do that. I understand —

Mrs Mason: But, Tracey, a SENCO's workload —

Ms Logan: — but if I do not have the money, I cannot give it to them.

Mrs Mason: — is what a SENCO's workload is.

Ms Logan: I am sorry. I was not finished talking, so I did not hear your question.

Mrs Mason: A SENCO's workload is what a SENCO's workload is. They are prioritising going away for that day and then bringing the learning back. That is just another example of the mistrust that they have. They see it being given and taken away.

I am moving on to other issues. We were at a meeting last week. Julie and Deirdre, you were both in attendance. I know that it was not an official consultation as such, but there was an awful lot of feedback that day. What was your takeaway from the teachers, the SENCOs, the classroom assistants and everybody else who was there that day?

Ms Ward: There was an awful lot of anxiety in the room. People are nervous about the changes, and we listened to that. It has been a crazy week. We absolutely want to sit down and go through all of what we heard that day. We took some notes, and I have committed to engaging with some of the people whom I spoke to after the event in order to hear in more detail about some of the challenges that they raised that day. For us, that was the start of the conversation, and we want that conversation to continue. Yes, we very much heard the level of anxiety about the changes that are coming forward and the challenges that people are facing right now today.

Mrs Mason: There was a lot of frustration in the room as well. I understand you saying that you will take that away and that you have heard a lot of the things. A lot of the frustration that I heard afterwards, and when they were contacting me as well, is that that was not the first time that they had said that. They said that over and over again to DE and to the EA. As I said on the day — this is not a slight on you guys; this is a slight on the system that is in place — they are sick to the back teeth of saying those things repeatedly in different forums. They are afraid that, no matter what they say here, this is just going to be bulled on through, and that none of the issues that they are raising will be fixed.

Michelle mentioned the consultations. One question was about career progression; you had to tick if you agreed with career progression. Of course they are going to say that they agree with career progression. That is one issue that they have. But there is no detail and they have no idea what that actually means. Their fear is that, coming back from these consultations, everything is going to be wonderful and everybody out there is going to agree with everything. However, those granular details, as you guys heard that day, are the bits that are instilling a lot of fear and mistrust. People are asking where this is going, because they do not see a road map. How is there going to be any change?

Ms McBride: I totally get your point. Of course, everyone will tick that they want career progression. Professor Una O’Connor Bones, of Ulster University, did a report two years ago on the profile of classroom assistants. We have commissioned her to take that work forward and look at the career progression of classroom assistants, their terms and conditions, job descriptions and the pay. That is a piece of work that we have commissioned and are taking forward in partnership with the EA. It is not going to be a quick fix, but we are passionate about making sure that classroom assistants are acknowledged for the excellent work that they do, are paid appropriately and have permanent contracts for those who want them.

Ms Ward: And that they have a way to progress as far as they would like to take it. We are clear that Una O’Connor Bones will be reaching out to all schools in the next week or so.

Ms McBride: We have said, through the consultation on the enhanced support model, "This is a piece of work we are doing on classroom assistants. If you want to get involved, contact us". We have had quite a few emails, and will pass those on. We are hoping that a letter will go out to schools in the next week or two saying, "We want to talk to principals, classroom assistants and SENCOs. If you want to get in touch, let us know". That engagement will, hopefully, commence in September/October.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Final point, Cathy.

Mrs Mason: I hope that you got a feeling from that day about your reaching out to schools that principals are just going to say, "There's another email I have to respond to, another thing that I have to do, another bit of the workload puzzle that there is at the minute". A lot of them say that they do not even have the time to read them, never mind put in the right information. I do not see how we can move forward without pausing this. There was a member from the EA there last week —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Bring it to a close, Cathy.

Mrs Mason: — who basically said, "No, it will not be paused", and there was a kind of threat made with, "Well, if we pause it, it's all going to collapse".

Ms McBride: We just have to see what the consultation responses say and then make a decision. We will see what happens.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have said a number of times that the close of a consultation is an appropriate time for everybody to pause. That is what you would expect at the end of a consultation. The system seems to feel a need for that very strongly. That is coming through clearly, so let us take the time that is needed. There may be specific issues on the back of all our evidence sessions today that we want to take forward. On the back of our meeting next week, there are likely to be more specific queries around getting into the detail of, "OK, these are the regs that are maybe causing problems, that need more attention or that we need further assurances on". That is likely to be the shape of the process from here. Thank you for your time, and no doubt we will be hearing from you again soon. We are conscious of the sense of being overwhelmed that everybody across the board in the system is feeling right now. Thank you all for your time.