Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome the Minister of Education, Paul Givan, and the officials joining us today. We have Sharon Smyth, deputy secretary; Paul Brush, acting deputy secretary; Dr Suzanne Kingon, acting deputy secretary; and Neil Palmer, finance director, all in the Department of Education.

First, Minister, thank you for your attendance. You have come straight from an Executive meeting, and your ability to honour your commitment to come to the Committee today is noted and appreciated, as we understand that we are in a pretty fast-moving situation as regards the Executive response to events of recent days.

I will open up the meeting for any initial briefing that you want to make. You have generously offered us a couple of hours of your time, so it is up to you how long you would like to take over that initial briefing. However, we usually suggest up to 10 minutes. Over to you.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Chairman. I will provide an initial update. The Executive meeting that I left to come here may be ongoing, but I dealt with education issues, engaged with the Chief Constable and updated colleagues on a number of issues of concern that I have.

The circumstances that we have witnessed over the past 24 hours have, understandably, raised serious concerns in our schools and in the wider community. The violence of last night was appalling and should be condemned by everybody. Over the course of the morning, I engaged with the Education Authority (EA), the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) and the PSNI on providing advice to schools, as schools were seeking information. That engagement resulted in communication being issued to schools stating that we want them to be able to continue their business as normally as possible, recognising that there are some isolated, localised concerns. Those are issues on which to engage directly with the PSNI in the relevant communities.

I raised the issue of making sure that the PSNI can be contacted and that principals have access to advice from their local police district commanders, but that we want as many schools as possible to be open. Many parts of the Province did not have protests or disruption; therefore, a blanket approach would be disproportionate. It would not have been practical to have taken such a position, either, and I believe that to do so would have been counterproductive.

One very important issue for many people, in addition to the safety and welfare of our young people and teachers, is that many are completing their A-level and GCSE exams. I engaged with CCEA on that. The exams are continuing as normal today. We engaged with CCEA so that communication would issue to our exam centres and to encourage young people to come into school as early as possible to make sure that they continue with their exams. I have no information to suggest that there has been any disruption to exams proceeding. I do not have figures for the Committee on that at this stage, but there is some anecdotal evidence of a decrease in pupil attendance today, particularly amongst the newcomer population, which is of concern. That was reflected on previous occasions, and that will be of concern to many people.

EA Youth Service was stood up last night and has been engaging with young people in areas where there have been challenges. The EA continues to work to provide as much support as possible. Where issues emerge in a school context, the Department and the EA will be there to support schools to manage those difficult situations.

I will add to why it is important that we continue to operate. First, I do not believe that we should ever allow those who engage in violence to win in our society. Closing down our schools would only encourage worse behaviour, and we should never cower to those who engage in such behaviour. However, that has to be balanced with localised decision-making and the safety and welfare of everybody involved. That is a message that the Chief Constable reiterated to me over the past number of minutes. His message is that we want to try to continue as normal, and that is the position that we are taking whilst trying to navigate the situation carefully.

There are also children whose parents are first responders. When those children cannot go to school or have to go home early, that impacts on the ability of police officers and fire officers to be engaged, so we need to be mindful and make sure that we do not have a domino effect, with unintended consequences that impact on our management of the difficult position that we face.

That was an update. I will be happy to take questions from Committee members in due course on how we are trying to navigate this difficult position.

If you are content, Mr Chairman, I will make my opening remarks, and then I will be happy to hand over to you. Let me formally say good afternoon to Committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear again before the Committee. I will provide an update on the key issues that the Department faces. Of course, it is always a pleasure to be here. In my opening remarks, I will focus particularly on TransformED, funding and special educational needs.

I welcome the session because reform in education must begin with a shared, honest and evidence-informed understanding of where we are, the pressures that we face, and what needs to change. Education in Northern Ireland is under sustained and growing financial pressure. Today, more than 70,000 children are registered as having special educational needs, and, critically, nearly 32,000 children now have a statutory statement of SEN, which is about 9% of the school population. Ten years ago, that figure stood at approximately 16,000 children, so that represents an increase of some 85% in a decade. The education budget is under substantial and unsustainable pressure as it seeks to keep pace with that level of demand. SEN expenditure has grown sharply to more than £700 million each year. In 2018, SEN expenditure represented 13% of the education budget. Now, it is 21% of all spend. In parallel, we see rapidly increasing costs across school staffing, transport and school meals.

An ever-growing number of schools are operating at a deficit. Funding has simply not kept pace with demand. The budget has remained in balance only through significant in-year funding allocations. We have relied on emergency funding and temporary measures simply to maintain day-to-day delivery across the education system. That is neither financially sustainable nor a stable foundation for long-term improvement.

I make this difficult point very clearly to the Committee: record levels of spending have not delivered the outcomes that too many children with special educational needs deserve. Despite significant investment, the current system is under growing pressure, with demand rising faster than the system can effectively respond. The evidence is increasingly clear: a substantial body of international research shows that an over-reliance on one-to-one classroom assistants does not consistently deliver the best long-term outcomes for most children with SEN. In too many cases, it can unintentionally reduce independence, limit peer interaction and create dependency, rather than building confidence and resilience.

Critically, Northern Ireland's current model is increasingly out of step with more progressive, evidence-informed approaches that are being adopted elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Ireland. We cannot simply continue to spend more money on a system that international evidence tells us is not working well enough for children. That would represent not compassion for children but cowardice on the part of decision makers.

We need to be honest about the fact that fundamental reform in how support is delivered is now necessary. That is exactly what the SEN reform agenda and the new enhanced support model are designed to achieve. The aim is to build a more flexible, evidence-informed and sustainable system that allows schools to respond more effectively to the needs of children. It is about moving towards earlier intervention, more specialist expertise, stronger multidisciplinary support and a highly trained workforce that feels equipped, valued and empowered.

My Department's five-year budget strategy is rooted in that same principle: facing financial reality honestly and acting before pressures overwhelm the system entirely. It is a road map to stabilise educational finances whilst protecting teaching and learning. It is about protecting the classroom first while reforming those areas in which costs are rising the fastest and outcomes are not improving sufficiently. We face a choice: either we bury our heads; close our eyes to the scale of the challenge; continue to pretend that limitless spending without reform is a sustainable answer; and continue to promise everything, reform nothing and blame others for our problems; or we can work together to build a system that is financially sustainable and educationally stronger and will deliver better outcomes for children.

Equally, we must ask some honest and uncomfortable questions about the performance of our education system. Northern Ireland has many strengths to build on, including highly skilled teachers, dedicated school leaders and strong school communities that deliver exceptional work every day. However, we cannot allow those strengths to blind us to the warning signs that are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Too many outcomes remain inconsistent; too many children's chances still depend on which school they attend. When we look at the GCSE and A-level outcomes, we see substantial variation between schools with similar pupil intakes and levels of disadvantage. That should concern us all. When we compare the controlled and maintained sectors, we see that Catholic maintained schools consistently outperform controlled schools even where levels of deprivation are broadly the same.

International evidence also raises serious concerns. In comparing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-olds across the world, the OECD's programme for international student assessment (PISA) shows that Northern Ireland performs at only at average international level in maths and science and that, across all areas, our performance sits below that of England and the Republic of Ireland. Almost 30% — nearly three in every 10 young people — fail to achieve basic international level 2 competence in mathematics. In the highest-performing systems, such as that in Estonia, that proportion is closer to 15%, and countries that we once outperformed are now moving ahead of us.

Our Key Stage assessment data for 2025 tells a similar story. Teachers judge that 28% of children do not meet the expected standard in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school: again, almost three in every 10 children. Among children who are entitled to free school meals, the figure rises to almost half. We have also lacked robust system-wide measures for tracking progress at primary and Key Stage 3 alongside having limited inspection evidence. That has reduced our ability to identify underperformance early and intervene effectively. That is why protecting inspection is fundamental to our education system. Inspection is not about naming and shaming schools or catching teachers out; it is about improvement. It is about identifying what works, challenging what is not working well and ensuring that every child in every classroom receives the high-quality education that they deserve.

Despite some of the contributions during the Second Stage debate, I hope that a way forward can be found on the Education Inspections Bill that gives at least some consideration to children. Reform of the education system is not optional; it is essential. However, that reform cannot happen in silos. Reform of service delivery and TransformED must go hand in hand. We cannot reform the curriculum while ignoring the financial and operational pressures that are overwhelming schools and support services. Equally, we cannot focus only on balancing budgets without confronting stagnation in educational outcomes and the need to improve standards for all children. Those challenges are interconnected. Long-term reform is needed across transport, school meals and SEN delivery. There must also be difficult but necessary conversations about the sustainability of the school estate and, yes, in some cases, school closures.

Reform must also target the core pillars of educational effectiveness: curriculum; assessment; qualifications; tackling educational disadvantage; and school improvement. It must be supported by sustained investment in teacher professional learning and leadership development. That means focusing relentlessly on what children are taught, how they are taught and how progress is measured. TransformED and my Department's five-year sustainability plan work together to provide a pathway that is better, fairer and more sustainable for the education system. Together, they represent the most serious attempt in a generation to align financial sustainability with educational reform and better outcomes for children. None of those things can be delivered by any Minister acting alone. Lasting reform will require political honesty, shared responsibility and collective leadership. It requires grown-up conversations about the important issues that face our education system.

I am not standing still, because children who are being failed cannot afford to wait for reform. They get only one chance. Today, I draw the Committee's attention to what has already been achieved. Year 1 of TransformED was deliberately focused on investing in the teaching workforce and on policy design, review and planning. The achievements are substantial. They include having made significant progress on improving teachers' pay, reflecting the importance of the profession and the considerable responsibilities that teachers carry each day.

Since February 2024, the starting salary for teachers has increased by over a third to £32,916, with average teacher pay rising by almost £10,000. We have the largest expansion of professional learning in a generation, including the teacher professional learning fund, which provides funding of £31 million directly to schools on a per-teacher basis. We have new policy frameworks now for curriculum, assessment, qualification and professional learning and a clear evidence-based literacy framework that supports reading, writing and oracy. We have a new curriculum framework for initial teacher education, ensuring that every new teacher enters the classroom better prepared. We have new bursaries to strengthen recruitment in subjects with teacher shortages and expanded induction for newly qualified teachers. We have new system-level sample assessments in literacy and numeracy, and we have real investment in tackling disadvantage through the RAISE programme. None of those is a quick win. They are about creating the platform on which sustained improvement is possible.

There has been some criticism of the scale and speed of change through TransformED, but one of the most important lessons that we have learned is that improving education cannot be done piecemeal. Therefore, TransformED is deliberately different. It is about rebooting the entire policy framework together so that the different parts fit, reinforce one another and create a coherent whole. Education reform is like a jigsaw; each piece matters in its own right. However, it is only when the pieces are designed and put together properly that they make a clearer picture. For the first time in a generation, we are aligning curriculum, assessment, qualifications and professional learning into a single, coherent system.

I understand that some stakeholders have concerns about pace and classroom impact. I assure them, and members of the Committee, that reform is being paced. It is being phased, and, crucially, it will be supported. It will be deliberately phased over several years and will be carefully managed so that the change is introduced in a measured, sustainable way.

The year ahead will focus relentlessly on delivery. Over the next year, members will see the following: consultation on the new statutory curriculum and the new religious education syllabus; publication of pedagogical principles and curriculum guidance; development of high-quality curriculum resources, professional learning and a digital platform to support delivery; continued reform of assessment, including strengthened system-level checks that are designed to support learning; work progressing on the new GCSEs and A-level specifications; and new leadership programmes for middle leaders, principals and system leaders. There will be further expansion of professional learning and subject networks and the continued roll-out of the RAISE programme and evaluation of its impact.

It is also about recognising that the way that we have organised improvement and support has not always served schools well. That is why the delivery commitments are underpinned by the creation of a new centre for educational excellence and improvement in the Department. It is a new delivery structure that will sit at the heart of the system. For too long, Northern Ireland has lacked investment and coherence in the middle tier that connects policy intent with the classroom reality. International evidence is unequivocal: systems that succeed invest in the delivery infrastructure. The new centre will bring together curriculum design and support professional learning, leadership development and school improvement coherently, transparently and at scale.

To conclude, ultimately, it comes down to a very simple question: do we believe that the current system is delivering consistently enough for all our children and young people? If we are honest with ourselves, I believe that the answer is no. Standing still is not a neutral option. If we do nothing, the pressures will continue to grow, the financial position will continue to deteriorate and the gaps in outcomes will continue to widen. That is why reform is necessary; not reform driven by ideology or reform for headlines, but reform that is driven by evidence, honesty and a determination to do better for all children.

Reform is about raising standards and strengthening equality and building a system that is financially sustainable and educationally ambitious. I believe that Northern Ireland can have an education system that is among the very best internationally. However, achieving that requires courage to confront difficult truths, a willingness to challenge approaches that are no longer working, and a collective commitment to the long term. That will require partnership across schools, sectors, parents, delivery organisations, government and the Committee. My message today is a simple one: let us be honest about the challenges, let us be ambitious about the future and let us work together to build an education system that is stronger, fairer, more sustainable and genuinely delivers for every child and young person in Northern Ireland.

Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make those opening remarks. I am in your hands, and I am happy to answer questions from members.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Minister. For members' information, we will be looking to keep members' contributions to the 10-minute mark because we have a longer session today with the Minister, so just bear those timings in mind.

I want to pick up on the live issues of the day first of all, Minister, before we get into the wider points. A lot of families from ethnic minorities may be very afraid about safe travel to and from school for their children, and pupils will be feeling incredibly vulnerable. What support is in place through your engagement with the EA, Translink and the PSNI on safe journeys to and from school?

Mr Givan: A number of structures exist to manage situations such as this, and they have been stood up. We participate with the community safety group, which is established through the Department of Justice and the PSNI. The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) team also works across various areas. There is the EA's Youth Service, and also engagement with schools. As issues arise and information comes to us that there are challenges, we will provide support to schools. It will be at school level that they will often be identified, and we will respond to that. I want to know the impact on attendance figures today. At this stage, it is only anecdotal. As school leaders indicate particular challenges in their schools, the EA will work with them to provide support. The support is multifaceted. It varies; it is not generic.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I absolutely understand that. I concur with your opening remarks that nobody wants to see those who are taking violence onto our streets dictating how we run our education system. That has to be balanced with safety, however, and there will be families and young people feeling very vulnerable at the moment.

On that basis, the Committee has had direct contact on the examinations issue in particular, and I know that a decision has been taken to proceed with them. This may be an emerging picture, but if any young person has, through the threat of violence, been unable to attend school to sit an exam or if their housing situation and ability to prepare for an exam has been disrupted, can we get assurances that provision will be put in place to ensure that they are supported to take their exams and do not have their entire year of education disrupted as a result of the unacceptable violence that we saw last night? Let us hope that that violence does not continue.

Mr Givan: I assure you that the answer is yes. Let me preface some of my remarks. First, I am not clear what level of disruption has taken place this afternoon, so once I leave the Committee, I will be seeking an update. There are pupils currently sitting their exams, and I want to get an assessment of how successful, or otherwise, that has been. What I do not want is for this to continue. It is a dynamic situation that we need to keep under assessment. When I came into this meeting, my understanding was that every exam centre was proceeding and that there had been no disruption. Some students might not have been able to participate. In my engagement with CCEA this morning, I talked through what special circumstances there would be to mitigate in such situations, and there are mitigating circumstances when a student cannot attend an examination.

I will keep the Committee informed of how many pupils are unable to sit their exams. I do not have that information to hand. I hope that the number is very small. However, where we can provide special circumstances, there is a standard process. If someone loses their parent, for example, there are special circumstances to mitigate when it comes to sitting an exam, and we would be able to facilitate that. What we do not want is a wholesale cancellation of an exam because that would create a ripple effect that would affect every child. However, it is right that we have special circumstances for individual pupils who are adversely impacted on.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I appreciate that, and your assurance to keep in touch with the Committee. We can engage with CCEA directly ourselves. There will undoubtedly be other issues arising from the situation that we find ourselves in that members may want to pick up on.

I want to move on to another issue in the system. You referred to it at various points in your briefing, and you set out your programme for the Department, your priorities and the reform agenda, and we will no doubt get into that in detail.

From looking at the system, it seems to me that industrial relations are once again at crisis point. There is no doubt that the pay deal that was achieved was welcomed, almost across the board, by teachers. It was a very welcome and long-overdue settlement. We are, however, again in the scenario of strike action being balloted on, and the single issue on which it seems to be focused is workload. That is being driven by some of the concerns about the pace of change, which you referenced. Workload is not a new issue but a chronic issue in our system that has not been dealt with over many years. To start with, what are you tangibly doing now about interventions and resource? We are at a critical point. I suggest to you that the system is extremely fragile. How will you address the workload issue?

Mr Givan: There are a number of points to make in response to that, Chairman. The workload issue is not a new one. It is well documented, and it featured in previous industrial relations disputes over pay. Some of the decisions around pay were informed by the pressure on workload. We were able to navigate the last two years of the pay cycle by separating out the workload issue. When I met the unions to try to reach an agreement on previous pay settlements, the establishment of the independent panel was the means by which we would help define what it is that the workload issue relates to. Even the trade unions have struggled to specify what exactly is the challenge with workload. There is the totality of the pressure that school leaders and teachers face, but, when we try to drill down into what the specific issues are, the pressure becomes harder to quantify.

The panel carried out its work, and the trade unions all agreed on their representative to be on the panel. The panel engaged and was able to crystallise that work in its report, which was published. The report contains 27 recommendations, and the Department formally responded to them. I met the trade unions, because there was a point at which the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) went ahead of the other unions and indicated that it was in dispute with the Department. I sat with the leadership teams from all the trade unions, officials from my Department and the employing authorities, which represent management side, and we went through the recommendations. That meeting concluded, I thought, in a positive fashion. I felt that we had found a way through the workload-related matters. Obviously, that did not transpire to be the case, as the leadership of the trade unions went back to their committees, and the trade unions then responded in the way in which they have done since.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): On that basis, let me ask you something. The assessment that I hear from the teaching unions is that they feel that the Department's response to the review was a high-level one, that a lot of things seemed to be kicked down the road and that no clear resource was attached to a lot of the actions. A lot of them were highlighted as not being able to proceed without resource. Working groups were to be established, but there has been a long history of workload agreements being reached but not being implemented. I put it to you that, if we cannot address the workload issue, the whole system will be in a really precarious position. Whatever anyone thinks about your agenda, you cannot deliver any of it if teachers are not fully engaged in the classroom and if industrial relations are in that state. What priority are you therefore allocating to the issue? What specifically are you doing to address it in the very short window of time that we have to get it right? What resource are you allocating to sort out the issue?

Mr Givan: Resource is always a challenge. The financial pressures are well documented. Having met the unions and then received feedback that there was an emerging issue with the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC), the umbrella group, my team met the unions again. Led by the permanent secretary and management side, we engaged, but the unions have proceeded to go down that route. I am not breaking any confidence by saying that all the trade unions do not share the same position. There are different views in the school system. School leaders will have a view on how some of the recommendations will impact on them when it comes to delivering an environment in which we can engage with teachers. It is therefore not a universal picture. Rather, it is more nuanced. I do not believe that all five trade unions would have entered into an industrial dispute had —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is the reality of where we are at, however.

Mr Givan: Yes, but I raise that because it demonstrates the difficulty in trying to get agreement across all five trade unions on what exactly the solution is in order to allow us to make progress. As I said, the picture is more nuanced. There is not a universal issue when the specific aspects of workload are drilled down into.

To update members, the ballot is out until 1 September. That means that there is still the opportunity to try to get agreement that would avoid industrial action. We have now formally engaged the Labour Relations Agency (LRA), which has agreed to get involved with the Department, management side and the trade unions to try to find and facilitate a reconciliation on the issues. That will necessitate my Department and management side engaging with the unions and outlining to them what we believe to be the way forward. It will also require the trade unions to engage with the LRA and be very specific about what the issues are. Through that mediation, we will seek to reach a resolution. I am very much of the view that we have an opportunity to engage positively on the matter to try to get an agreement that will avoid industrial action. We all want to get to that place, so, hopefully, we can get the encouragement that is needed in order for people to engage in good faith. For my part, I absolutely will.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I hope that that is the case. The feedback from trade unions is that there seems to be a real sense that the situation feels intractable. I sincerely hope that that outcome can be avoided, however.

I will ask about one specific workload matter. My party colleague on the Committee and I tabled a motion that was debated in the House in April on special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) workload. I would say that, almost without exception, every section of the teaching workforce is overwhelmed and demoralised, while, at the same time, retaining profound and very impressive levels of commitment to the children and young people whom they look out for in their school every single day. SENCOs feel intense frustration that their role has become hugely administrative and bureaucratic, and they do not share the EA's assessment that the current reform agenda is reducing their workload. Rather, their experience is that it is increasing it. I have no reason to take their assessment in anything other than good faith, because they are dedicated professionals, often doing the job that they do simply because they know that no one else in the school will pick it up, given the workload involved.

They therefore continue to do it out of a sense of commitment to the children, yet you responded to a question for written answer from me by saying that you will not review their workload. You said that you will not review SENCOs' workload and that, somehow, the SEN reform agenda will sort it out. SENCOs with whom I have communicated, in my constituency and more widely, were profoundly disappointed with that response. Can you say to SENCOs, who are critical to delivering SEN reform, that you have their back and will address the workload issue? I cannot see how you will be able to progress the reform agenda without them.

Mr Givan: I have met SENCOs in my constituency and in my role as Minister of Education, and I have been encouraged by some of the engagement that I have had. They recognised that the reform agenda will assist them. That view may not necessarily be universally held. For those who are engaging in the reform process, it will be of tangible benefit to them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): May I correct you? SENCOs are engaging in the reform process. That is their job. They have to, every single day. I have not heard a single SENCO say, "We do not need to change the system". What they are saying is that the burdens that are being placed on them are hugely administrative and bureaucratic.

Mr Givan: I agree.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): They have no time to interact with children. Instead, they are pushing paper. That is surely not how that role should be being fulfilled.

Mr Givan: I agree with them. I agree about the administrative burden that has been placed on them and the —. I was going to say "timeliness", but the way in which the EA engages with our schools around assessments is not timely or responsive enough. I do not dispute what SENCOs are saying, but we need to work through the reform programme in order to see light at the end of the tunnel.

One of the proposals, which is not in the 27 recommendations but, rather, is one that we have added, in recognition of the administrative burden that is being placed on schools when it comes to special educational needs, is to seek to make provision for schools to be given general administrative support in order to release SENCOs and school leaders from a lot of that administrative paperwork. Some of the paperwork does need to be done, but does it need to be done by the school leader or by the teacher, who is best placed to teach? That proposal was not in the 27 recommendations, but we have said that we see a problem. We therefore want to provide greater general administrative support directly to schools to free them up, but part of that requires the enhanced model to be implemented, because there is no more money coming into the Department of Education. It is about how we better spend the £700 million that is being spent and how we repurpose it to help alleviate some of the pressures.

Paul may be able to say a little bit more about transformation, if doing so would be helpful. I hear what is being said. I want to see changes made, and I believe that we have a way forward that will help improve SENCOs' circumstances.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): In the interests of time, I will leave the issue there, because I know that other members are keen to come in. I have been nothing but impressed in my engagement with SENCOs. Yes, we can be critical of the EA, its engagement and the timeliness of its responses — the Committee regularly returns to those themes — but, ultimately, this is an essential element of SEN reform, so the issue must be resolved. There are much wider system issues to consider, but if we do not have SENCOs carrying out their roles, we cannot deliver the system. I am really concerned that we are asleep at the wheel and that there is a sense that everything will work itself out. That is not good enough, so we need to be clear. It would have been good to have seen that extra resource allocation specifically reference SENCOs. They were hoping that that would happen and that there would be specific support for them, but they did not hear that. They remain to be convinced, so we will watch this space.

I will return to another issue to do with SEN, after which I will bring in other members. Other members will, no doubt, want to ask about the wider reform picture, but I want to talk about one element that runs through the whole issue of SEN, whatever your approach is, and that is placements. I am concerned that we remain in a scenario in which we are not placing children with special educational needs appropriately, in a timely way and in a way that feels planned and strategic. Furthermore, the way in which parents can engage with the system is not appropriate, and it is not appropriate for the schools that are managing the process. Will you give us an update on how many children with special educational needs who are currently in a transition year remain unplaced for September?

Mr Givan: The process replacement —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Just the number, if you have it.

Mr Givan: Yes, I do. There is a forecasted pressure of around 180 pupils needing a placement in September. That is an unacceptable figure, but I contrast it with last year's and the year before's. It is an improving picture on what we have had, but that uncertainty is still difficult for the families involved.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We always welcome hearing that the number is lower, but this is not just a numbers game. It is also about the experiences of parents and schools. I am still hearing feedback from principals, who contact me regularly. They use terms that they do not like, but they have to use terms that characterise the process. The phrase that is regularly used is, "This feels like horse-trading", because the EA comes in and says, "If you take that child, we'll not ask you to take that one" or, "There's 10 here. Give us eight, and we'll work with you". That is not an appropriate way in which to place children with special educational needs. That is not my passing comment on the professionalism of EA staff. It is my comment on a placement system that is absolutely in crisis. What commitment can you give the Committee that we will see a strategic, planned approach to placements that more reflects an area-planning approach, where places are made available and the appropriateness of placements can be assured? The number of children requiring placement may be down, but the process does not feel different.

Mr Givan: Take it from the high level. We have mapped out the special educational needs provision that will be required in Northern Ireland for the next 10 years. We have identified how we can enhance and provide additional capacity in all 39 special schools, and we are doing that. I have put in bids to the Department. I met the Minister of Finance as recently as last week to go through the capital allocation that is required in order to improve the physical school infrastructure. That is the physical increase in capacity that we need. There will, however, be an increasing requirement for mainstream settings to accommodate specialist provision, because we all want children to be educated in the same school as their siblings. Over the past number of years, we have therefore increased that capacity. There has been clear engagement with schools. I have personally intervened and asked schools to engage with the EA, because not every school will have that conversation with it.

We have also helped empower principals who already offer specialist provision to engage with their peers to assure them that doing so works. They can say to them, "Don't take the word of the EA. Don't take the word of the Department. Here's how it has worked in my school, and you can have confidence in going through the process of offering specialist provision". Additional capacity has therefore been established over the past three years. There is a better process, and that is reflected in the fact that the figures for children requiring placement are not as high at this point in the year as they have been.

The statementing process is a forecasted pressure. There are children who do not currently have a statement of educational need. It has not yet been specified that they require specialist provision. If there were an arbitrary cut-off date in the allocation of children to schools, children, because they did not yet have a statement of educational need, would be allocated to schools in September that would not be suitable for them. The number given for the pressure in the forecast is therefore different from the figure for today. The number of children with an actual statement who have a required need in September will be more than that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We appreciate that. The system needs flex. I absolutely understand that, but it seems to me that there has been a blockage over many years to prevent a more planned approach being taken, and, as far as I can see, that has not improved under your tenure. For area planning for mainstream places, we know the likely demographics and the number of pupils who will be needed in each year group in an area in the different sectors, but we also largely understand that information in the case of special educational needs. We understand the trajectory of growth in need and where the areas of particular pressure are, yet, in my constituency, for example, we continue to bus children from Newtownards to Portaferry to access a specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) unit. How is that taking a planned approach to placements?

Mr Givan: If we are to have a planned approach, as I have outlined, this is the framework by which to do it. I have requested — a paper has been updated to go to the Executive on the back of my meeting with the Minister of Finance — deliberate earmarked funding of £70 million per annum, which would be in addition to the general allocation. We cannot ask for planned development of capital programmes to help build capacity if we do not then receive the financial allocation for them.

How, then, do we move to proactive planning from the reactive position that we have been in? We are standing up provision because there is not the level of planned spend that is needed. I therefore appeal to the Committee to help me secure the additional funding that is needed to give the protection that is required for those specialist provisions. With that protected funding, we would be able to allow that proactive framework to be implemented. If we do not have that funding, we will have to react. Help me secure the funding that I need in order to enable the long-term financial planning that is necessary.

In the short term, however, the reactive process is being operated in a better way than has been the case in previous years. There is engagement with schools. Proactively identifying areas where there is need, working with principals and having the EA engage with them to identify how we can provide specialist support is a better situation than that previously. I inherited a problem. I have sought to address it through having a long-term plan. I have improved the short-term interventions. This, however, is not something that sits in isolation with the Department or, indeed, the EA, and that is why I have appealed to colleagues around this table to help me in their constituencies. Members, whenever there is a school in your constituency that says that it is refusing to engage — even to engage — in the process, help me get it over the line so that I can open up an opportunity for it to engage with the EA. If people are not prepared to talk, it is very difficult to bring them along.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I can assure you that I have those conversations in my constituency. For me, the challenge is not just financial, although of course there are financial challenges involved. I do not underestimate the financial pressures that you face in carrying out your role.

I will give you an example. I was out at Oakwood special school's satellite site in Saintfield. There, staff are flagging major concerns about the cohort that will shortly be leaving the school at the age of eight, but they are also flagging the fact that there is a building next to its school that previously offered non-statutory preschool provision. They say that that building just needs a lick of paint and that, if the school had that, they could open it to accept pupils into P1 places. I got a response back from the Department to say that all of that is in progress, but when I then spoke to the school, I was told, "We've had no update. We don't know anything about that process. We're waiting to hear when it will be opened". There are parents waiting to hear whether their child will be placed in that school. That is not about finance. Rather, it is about a system in which the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. That cannot be an acceptable way in which to run things. It does not take money to be able to communicate. I will leave it at that.

Mr Givan: I agree with you. Communication is key.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It is.

Mr Givan: If that is not happening, it should be.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Communication is key, and that lack of communication puts school leaders and parents under pressure. Get the little things right, and some of the other issues may resolve themselves. I will leave it there.

Mr Sheehan: Minister, last week, I visited Sion Mills Integrated Primary School. I received a great welcome from the principal, the staff and the pupils. I was extremely impressed by the students. It is a school with a number of quite serious problems, however. You were invited to visit the school on 6 September last year, but you pulled out some hours beforehand. The school had commissioned a plaque to commemorate the fact that it had relaunched itself as an integrated school. The plaque had your name on it as having been involved in the relaunch, and, of course, the children had been primed for your visit. To say that they were disappointed that you did not visit is an understatement.

There is water pouring through the roof of the school in a number of areas. The corridors and hallways are littered with basins and buckets. It is only a matter of time before some child, while attempting to navigate the obstacles, falls and hurts themselves or slips in a puddle of water and cracks their skull or something like that. Given that you have expressed concerns about child safeguarding and safety, I encourage you to visit the school to see its problems. They have been going on for a long time. The roof is covered with moss. Tiles are broken, or else the lead flashing is damaged in some way. The longer that that problem is left unresolved, the greater that it will be. There will be rotten roof trusses, joists or whatever, which will cost more money to fix in the long run. That is no environment in which for children to learn. No child should be in a school with water running through the roof into hallways and classrooms. It is unacceptable. I encourage you to visit the school at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably before the start of the summer holidays.

On 23 March, you were asked in the House whether you had ever been accused of bullying in the Department, and you emphatically answered no. That turned out not to be true. What part of your conduct gave rise to an allegation of bullying?

Mr Givan: I responded to that because there was no specific question. I challenged you and other Members who raised that to be specific.

Mr Sheehan: You were asked whether you had ever been the subject of an allegation of bullying, and you said no. Are you saying that there are other allegations?

Mr Givan: No, I said for your Members to give me specifics, but they did not do that.

Mr Sheehan: Have there been other allegations?

Mr Givan: Listen, I will answer the question. If the Committee wants to litigate HR-related issues, that is a matter for the Committee. I will answer questions, because I have nothing to hide about that matter, but the level of detail that the Committee wants to go into is a matter for the Committee. I will certainly not obfuscate when answering any question that is asked. What I will say is that I responded by providing information by way of a written ministerial statement.

You referred to an allegation. Anybody can make an allegation. I am sure that you have had allegations made against you. The question —.

Mr Sheehan: How many allegations of bullying have been made against you in the Department?

Mr Givan: The question should always be whether the allegation was substantiated. Categorically, it was not substantiated in any shape or form. As I said, the allegation was made some nine months after the individual was no longer in the Department. That individual had also been subject to other investigations in the Civil Service. If members wish to go into the detail, they should have the head of the Civil Service (HOCS) and the head of the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) here to provide you with advice. I am constrained legally as to the level of information that I can provide, but I can say that I acted always with integrity on every single issue. The investigation found that I had acted appropriately. There were no findings whatsoever to substantiate the allegation. There are many more questions to be asked of individuals who were associated with that allegation than there are of me. I, as Minister, made sure that all my actions were taken in the interests of the Department.

Mr Sheehan: Were the allegations made by the permanent secretary?

Mr Givan: If you want to go into specific issues, the Committee needs to bring Jayne Brady and the Departmental Solicitor's Office's legal professional here. They will be able to provide you with the answers.

Mr Sheehan: I am asking you, Paul, because you were the subject of the allegation. During the review, did officials in the Department raise concerns that they were unable to speak openly or afraid to challenge you?

Mr Givan: You will need to ask Jayne Brady to release the review report. My position on the matter is on public record. I have said that there should be total transparency. Publish the report that was commissioned by the head of the Civil Service and have it wholly unredacted so that people can see the information. Otherwise, Members will —.

Mr Givan: You are saying that, Paul, in the knowledge that Jayne Brady is never going to publish it.

Mr Givan: No, no. I am saying it in the knowledge —.

Mr Sheehan: Did the permanent secretary make the allegations of bullying?

Mr Givan: I say that it should be published in full, because you will find that there was nothing at fault on my part, and people will be able to see that. I say, "Publish it", not because I think that Jayne Brady will not publish it but because she should publish it.

Mr Sheehan: Did you ask the permanent secretary to promote another official in your Department?

Mr Givan: With respect, Mr Sheehan, your line of questioning is entirely inappropriate. It is entirely inappropriate for you to get involved in asking such questions. You have already referred in the Committee to my officials, ultimately, as a bunch of liars and asked why you should believe them.

Mr Sheehan: That is totally inaccurate.

Mr Givan: It is not inaccurate. It is a summation of what you said when my officials came to the Committee. You said that they come here and do not give you responses, not just in this Committee but in other Committees, because they are here to do the Minister's bidding.

Mr Sheehan: Did you tell the permanent secretary to promote an official in your Department to a more senior position?

Mr Givan: With respect, Mr Sheehan —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: With respect —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister, may I come in? Jon, I again ask for remarks to be made through the Chair.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Ultimately, it is for members to ask the questions that they choose to ask, and it is for any witness appearing before us, including the Minister, to choose whether it is appropriate to answer those questions. It is therefore entirely in the hands of the questioner and the witness.

Mr Givan: With respect, Mr Chairman, you are responsible for the conduct of your Committee members. You cannot wash your hands of a member's behaviour that is completely outwith what is reasonable to ask on a sensitive issue.

Mr Sheehan: Minister, you are accusing the Committee Chair —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will come in, because the Minister is questioning how I am conducting the meeting. It is not my role to censor members. I will make the decision as to whether a question is out of order. In this scenario, given the seniority of your role, Minister, it is entirely up to you whether you choose to answer the question. If you choose not to, that is entirely up to you.

Mr Brooks: Chair, the Minister has answered the question. He has made it clear —.

Mr Sheehan: Excuse me a second. I want to make sure that my allocated time has been stopped as a result of these interventions.

Mr Brooks: The Minister has made it clear that there are legal considerations that constrain the answer that he can give.

Mr Sheehan: You are not the Minister's guard dog.

Mr Brooks: The member has continued to ask the same question. There is therefore a role for the Chair to step in. The meeting is be chaired.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David, I am chairing the meeting. It is for the Minister to choose whether he wants to answer the question.

Mr Brooks: He has answered the question, but it has been repeated.

Mr Sheehan: He has not answered the question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will ask the Deputy Chair to come back in. If the Minister has decided not to answer the question, we will move on.

Mr Givan: No, I have answered it. I have answered the question. What legal advice has the Committee taken to facilitate the line of questioning that Mr Sheehan has followed? What advice, Mr Chairman, have you taken?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have not taken legal advice.

Mr Givan: What legal advice has your Clerk provided to the Committee?

Mr Sheehan: He does not have to take legal advice.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The member is responsible for his own line of questioning.

Mr Givan: You have therefore not taken any advice as a Committee to get involved in what are HR/personnel issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister —.

Mr Givan: You have not taken advice.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Without —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The Deputy Chair did not brief the Committee on his line of questioning, so it is for —

Mr Givan: You are deeming it appropriate.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — him to decide whether he wants to follow that line and for you to decide whether it is appropriate to answer. If it is covered by any matters that are legally privileged, you simply need to state that, and we can move on.

Mr Givan: I have answered the question.

Mr Sheehan: It is quite straightforward. If you did not ask the permanent secretary to promote an official in your Department to a more senior position, all that you have to say is, "No, I didn't do that".

Mr Givan: Mr Sheehan, I will tell you what my answering that question does. Whether I answer in the affirmative or the negative, it means that you can ask me any question about any staffing issue in my Department. That is why I will not answer that particular question. It is wholly inappropriate for members of the Committee to delve into what are personnel matters to do with Civil Service staff. That is not in order. What is in order is for me to say to you, categorically, that I did not act in any way in which I was found to be at fault.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That draws a line under it.

Mr Sheehan: You are not going to answer that question.

Mr Givan: No, I did answer it, but it is notable, at a time when we are facing a £600 million deficit and a pressure in our education system that is unparalleled, that you are pursuing a line of questioning of that nature. That is telling about the motivation on your part.

Mr Sheehan: Just one more question on that. In the allegation of bullying that was made against you, was it alleged that there was a sectarian element?

Mr Givan: With respect, Mr Sheehan, I have said, "Publish the report", because what you will find in that report —.

Mr Sheehan: You know that Jayne Brady is not going to publish it. That is why you are saying that.

Mr Givan: Sorry, but it is her report. She commissioned it, so it is not my report. I do not have the report. What I was given, though, was a read-out, and that read-out made it clear, categorically, that any allegations that were made were dismissed. People can make whatever allegations that they want. It is about having the ability to substantiate them, and after going through that process, it was found that I acted appropriately at all times. When you put allegations into the public domain, you should then follow up by saying, "The Minister has actually said that he was found not to have acted in a way that was inappropriate". That is the finding, that is what matters, but it does not suit your narrative for you to put that in the public domain.

Mr Sheehan: OK, fair enough, so you are not going to answer any of the questions. I get that.

Mr Givan: No, I have just answered it categorically in a way that you do not like.

Mr Sheehan: I get that. You are not answering the questions.

Moving on, why have you and the rest of your party opposed my private Member's Bill on Irish-medium workforce planning?

Mr Givan: We do not think it is necessary, because I am delivering on Irish-medium education when it comes to the workforce plan. The basis of opposition is not because we are fundamentally opposed in principle to helping develop the Irish-medium sector and address workforce issues. Your legislation is not necessary. Legislation would be necessary if you felt that we were not doing that, but we are doing it, and doing it effectively. That is why we are opposing the Bill, not on the basis having a principled opposition to Irish-medium education.

Mr Sheehan: So you are relying heavily on the strategy that will not even be ready until after the end of the mandate. How many meetings of the strategy working group have you attended?

Mr Givan: The strategy working group is being taken forward at my direction. I do not attend every meeting of the working groups. I have not attended any working group to do with the curriculum, for example. The Minister appoints a strategy team and appoints people to it so that —.

Mr Sheehan: So the answer is none.

Mr Givan: The question, Mr Sheehan, is: am I waiting on a strategy to take forward the needs of the Irish-medium sector? No, I am not. I am getting on with helping the Irish-medium sector. I am not waiting on a strategy document. That will be important, and it is important that we get that right, but if we were to wait for that strategy, we would not be taking forward a number of the initiatives that we have done to support the Irish-medium sector.

Mr Sheehan: Did you not say at the last TransformED conference that the Department is full of strategies that are gathering dust on a shelf?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): This will be a final response on this subject, and then we will move on.

Mr Givan: I —.

Mr Sheehan: No, you did not?

Mr Givan: I do not —.

Mr Sheehan: OK. You actually did say it. You did say it, so let me put this to you —.

Mr Givan: Let me say this, Mr Sheehan. I invited you —.

Mr Sheehan: Just one last question —.

Mr Givan: I am happy to continue, but I invited you to come the TransformED conferences. I invited every member of this Committee to come. Did you come?

Mr Sheehan: I am not interested in that. I am interested in the question that I asked you. You are deflecting.

Mr Givan: It is interesting that you are asking about something that I said when you were not even there to hear it.

Mr Sheehan: Do not be deflecting, because a number of people reported back to me.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, I said one final question, and that would be a final question.

Mr Sheehan: Let me put this to you —.

Mr Givan: If I said that, you have mischaracterised it and applied it to an Irish-medium strategy that I, as Minister, proactively established, appointed people to, and am taking forward. However, I am not waiting on the strategy to deliver.

Mr Sheehan: I am not getting a chance to get [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair; Minister. The Deputy Chair has a final question. His time was interrupted by me and by another member intervening, so I am content to have a final question, and then we will close this subject.

Mr Sheehan: I am going to put it to you that you and the DUP are opposed to my private Member's Bill because you are totally hostile to the Irish language —

Mr Brooks: Nonsense.

Mr Sheehan: — the Irish culture —

Mr Brooks: Absolute nonsense.

Mr Sheehan: — and anything connected with Irish. We had Sammy Wilson talking about Irish as a leprechaun language. We had Michelle McIlveen rename the fisheries boat from Irish to English. Gregory Campbell gave us the disgusting "curry my yoghurt" comment in the Chamber. You stopped the Líofa bursaries; DUP Ministers have removed bilingual —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Get to the question, Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: — language from headed paper —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Can you get to the question, Deputy Chair?

Mr Sheehan: — and your friend Gordon Lyons has joined court cases against Irish language policy and dual language signage in Grand Central station.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Still waiting for the question here.

Mr Sheehan: After all that, are you going to sit there and gaslight the Committee and tell me that the DUP is not hostile to the Irish language?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That was a very long preamble, so I ask for a brief answer.

Mr Sheehan: There is plenty of evidence, Chair.

Mr Givan: It is the election script. This is the default for Sinn Féin: when you cannot say to your voters what you have been able to achieve by being in government, you go back to the politics of grievance.

Mr Sheehan: That is deflection, Paul. Come on. Deflection.

Mr Givan: I did not interrupt your approach when you were pitching this in the way that you did.

Mr Sheehan: You have been interrupting me since I started asking you questions.

Mr Givan: No, I let you ask the one on Irish.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We really are running short on time here, so I ask —.

Mr Givan: With respect, Mr Chairman, the Deputy Chairman was given well over a minute to complete his party political broadcast, so I trust that I will be able to respond.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, I ask that you do not interrupt the Minister as he attempts to answer your question, and I ask, Minister, that your response be brief.

Mr Givan: On the Irish language strategy that the Minister from my party is taking forward, I have responded comprehensively. Do you know which Department has not responded at all, as came out in the court case? The Department for the Economy. Sinn Féin talks about assisting in the development of the strategy, but why is your own Sinn Féin Minister not responding?

Mr Sheehan: Why do you not stick to your own Department?

Mr Givan: Good question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, we need to give the Minister the opportunity to respond.

Mr Givan: Here is what I have delivered for the Irish-medium sector. Hopefully, I will get the time to say this, because it is important. I provided an additional £2·75 million to Irish-medium schools and units last year and an additional £2·9 million this year. I have increased the Irish-medium education accommodation fund by £2·4 million. I have invested in four Irish-medium primary schools, with an estimated cost in excess of £13·2 million. I have introduced Irish-medium teacher bursary schemes. I have supported 43 early years settings and almost 1,000 funded preschool places. I have announced £472,000 for Irish-medium early years funding. I have provided £300,000 to Irish-medium youth provision. I have invested £100,000 to continue the Scoil Spreagtha scheme. I have appointed an Irish-medium primary-school principal to act as the lead education adviser on curriculum reform, which is the first role of its type in the Department. I have supported research and formed conferences on immersion pedagogy and Irish language oracy via the Making Best Practice, Common Practice programme. I have provided funding to Irish-medium schools for teacher professional learning. I have piloted Irish-medium numeracy assessments, and, in the near future, I will commence work to develop bespoke curriculum strands for Irish-medium education. I will roll out specific Irish-medium resources and professional development pieces on phonics, oracy and biliteracy as part of the TransformED development days, and I am commencing work on an Irish-medium literacy framework. Beyond that, over the past 10 years, we have invested over £24 million in minor capital projects and over £36 million —. I say that my support for the Irish-medium sector is in stark contrast to what happened when Sinn Féin held this Department, so I will not be lectured about being anti-Irish when my record actually demonstrates very clear and tangible support. However, that does not suit the political narrative to culturally weaponise the Irish language in advance of the election. That is what Mr Sheehan is about.

Mr Brooks: Quite right.

Mr Sheehan: Good man, Paul.

Mr Brooks: Good man indeed.

Mr Sheehan: The champion of Irish-medium education. That is a new one.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, I am going to bring the next member in. Before I do that, I suggest that, if this evidence session is characterised by long preambles, by interruptions from other members that are not done through the Chair and by witnesses and members talking over each other, we will not make very much progress. Therefore, I ask members to work with me in conducting the meeting in an orderly fashion. I also emphasise that a lot of parents and teachers watch this Committee, and they will want to see us conduct the meeting in an appropriate and respectful manner.

Mr Burrows: Hear, hear.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I hope that we can continue in that vein.

Mr Burrows: I think that people will be in despair that the opportunity to hold a Minister to account and ask questions about our teachers' well-being and workload and the quality of education to our staff was used in a party political point-scoring manner by Mr Sheehan, but I will move on.

Minister, there are a couple of issues that I want to discuss, the first of which is principally about the workload, safety and well-being of our teachers. I will split that into two issues. First, I want to deal with bullying in our schools and the proposal by some members in this room to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I will then look at workload.

We heard devastating and compelling evidence from Sally Rees, and I have heard from teachers up and down the country, and from female pupils, that they are facing extreme misogyny. Female teachers have told me that they have been indecently assaulted, upskirted, downbloused, subjected to threats of rape and physically assaulted. Under the proposals brought by the Alliance Party and supported by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, no child under 14 could be held to any form of criminal accountability for any of those offences, including GBH with intent on a schoolteacher. In your view, will our schools be safer or less safe if those proposals are passed?

Mr Givan: I am clear that they will be less safe. The points that you have made, unfortunately, are well documented in the pressures in our schools. Nobody wants a young person to have a criminal conviction. We engage in seeking to address matters around discipline and behaviour. Part of that includes access to the Youth Justice Agency, because it could lead to a potential criminal conviction for 10-, 11-, 12- or 13-year-olds. In order to avoid that, we engage with organisations such as the Youth Justice Agency. Nowhere in that Bill, in removing and changing it, has there been other support to be provided to the education system. It is entirely irresponsible to bring forward changes on that issue without providing alternative support to assist our schools. I am unequivocal in my view that it would undermine the deterrent value that exists to help keep good order in our schools. It would also remove the ability of criminal justice agencies, such as the Youth Justice Agency, to be involved, because if it is no longer a potential criminal matter, they have no remit to be involved, and those who have proposed the change have not come forward with any alternative support. I will speak on the issue in the Assembly on Monday. It should be dealt with in a separate stand-alone Bill, not an amendment. Let it be properly considered across the Departments and consulted on, and let it go through a legislative process. I am concerned about it.

I am also concerned because — this is beyond the Education remit — we know that when there are difficulties on the streets, as happened last night, older people use young people to get involved in violence. If the age of criminal responsibility were raised to 16, which, unbelievably, the Children's Commissioner supports, imagine how much more exploitation would take place. We should seriously reflect on the change that has been proposed, particularly in the light of the past 24 hours. Separate to that, from a school perspective, it would be counterproductive.

Mr Burrows: I have no confidence in the Children's Commissioner. He told me that he believed that the age of criminal responsibility should be 16, with no exceptions. That means that, if a fifteen-and-a-half-year-old actually murdered or raped someone, the police would not be able to touch them. I am deeply concerned about that, because it sends the entirely wrong signal to female teachers and pupils — these are difficult issues — to say that being upskirted, downbloused or indecently assaulted is not a crime, and there is no deterrent factor. I will put on the record that I have been dealing with youth justice for the past 25 years, and very few young people are actually prosecuted. They are dealt with in a very rehabilitative way, but this is the most dangerous piece of legislation that the Assembly will pass, if it does pass it. I agree with the Minister that it should not be done through an amendment but through a proper youth justice Bill.

I will move on to teacher workload. First of all, let me deal with the issue of SENCOs. Their role is vital. The consistent, clarion message that I get from schools up and down the country is that the SENCO role should be full time, and if they choose not to teach, they should be supported and should be dedicated entirely to coordinating special educational needs provision. Do you agree that that should be a specialist role in itself?

Mr Givan: I am not sure that every teacher who is a SENCO would believe that it should not be led by an educationalist. However, I have heard the position put forward around having a general individual in the school who can focus purely on all that SENCO-related work, such as carrying out assessments and engaging with the EA. I am not clear what the best approach would be, because I have had mixed views on it. That is why we want to provide general administrative support to a school that could be utilised by the whole school, including by SENCOs. You would still retain the teaching-led element, but you would assist them in the administrative functions that the school is dealing with. I do not have a clear view on what the best approach might be; I am just reflecting on observations.

Mr Burrows: A second question around workload. Am I right in saying that your briefing suggests that the academic year might be extended beyond the current 195 days?

Mr Givan: No, that is not a proposal.

Mr Burrows: I was asked by a teacher, and I wanted to clarify that. That is absolutely not the case?

Mr Givan: No. Obviously, there is a legal requirement for what we do have. There are Baker days, which facilitate additional training. There is no proposal to increase the number of days in school. Parents may support that; I am not sure that schoolchildren would.

Mr Burrows: My next question is about bureaucracy. Head teachers tell me that they dread a couple of days in the week where they say that they get an email dump from the Education Authority and that, as head teachers, many of whom are also teaching, they spend time on disaggregating the email dump and then deciding how that should be distributed amongst their staff. If someone could do that centrally, it would save hours of work by a principal. That is being replicated across our system. Can you give a commitment that that can be done?

Mr Givan: That is part of the reason why we want to provide resource to a school to assist with general administration. The NAHT has specifically raised the issue of that kind of administrative pressure that exists on school principals. We want them to focus on teacher professional learning, the curriculum and the pupils, but, often, so much of their time is spent on administrative functions. The answer is yes, I do want to be able to provide that. It is part of the reason why we need to reform the way in which we support schools. It is also why we have taken forward a new AI approach to help with administrative functions. We tested that with a number of principals, and we engaged with Microsoft around Copilot technology. A number of principals relayed that it had significant benefits in reducing their administrative workload, and we have now entered into an agreement to move that forward to expand the opportunity that exists when it comes to administrative support in schools. That is practical support through AI technology, which can be harnessed where it is appropriate, and also it is part of our reform plan to provide that extra general administrative support to a school. That is about repurposing funding because, unless there is new money coming to Education — I do not believe that there is, and we need to close the deficit that already exists — we have to reform the way that we do things for that to enable that kind of support to be provided to schools.

Mr Burrows: My next one is on the Northern Ireland supply teacher register (NISTR) system for getting sub teachers. I sit with head teachers in their office, and they say to me that, if they try to book a sub teacher, a list of names will come up. There is an insufficient number of substitute teachers as it is; they struggle to get them. When they contact that sub teacher, they find that they are already working in another school, but the headmaster there has booked them not through the system but directly. I hear that in school after school. Is there something that can be done to say to principals, "You cannot do this, because you are then affecting the ability of other principals to get an accurate update of who is available"?

Mr Givan: In how they process the NISTR system?

Mr Burrows: They seem to be bypassing it and going directly to sub teachers. I have heard that from perhaps a dozen schools. When they ring someone who is showing as available, they say, "Oh no, I got a direct call", and therefore the system is not accurate.

Mr Givan: Let me come back to the member specifically on that after I have established the process. NISTR is the normal way in which you get substitute teachers coming in. That is not to say that the approach that you have outlined, Jon, where principals reach out to substitute teachers, is not happening. There are other issues connected to that that we have raised with the EA. There are issues around teachers who have retired and the school going back to the same retired teacher as opposed to other teachers. I can understand why a school would do that. That teacher knows the school and the pupils, and, if they are retired, they can be brought in. However, it also has an impact on those who want to get into the profession and get greater opportunities. There are other connected issues associated with how substitute teachers are being brought in, but I do not have a specific answer to that question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Given our timings, I think that that is an appropriate place to draw a line.

Mr Burrows: Can I ask one final question?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It really needs to be a brief comment, because we need to move on to the next member.

Mr Burrows: I am hearing a lot about teachers being injured and assaulted in the workplace. Some of that is an issue of dysregulated children, and that is a totally different category. A lot of the behaviour of some pupils is driven by phones and social media. I think that there are some issues of parenting.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I had indicated that your time was up, so this is your final comment.

Mr Burrows: This will be very short, Chair; it is an observation. I am told consistently that, where pupils and teachers — often female — are extremely bullied by a perpetrator in the school, they are made to feel that they are the problem for raising the issue. Often, the board of governors or the EA says, "Really? Do you want to make an issue? How do we deal with the suspect?"

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am going to have to —.

Mr Burrows: Can you make it clear that victims come first?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Jon, I have to draw a line.

Mr Givan: Absolutely, Chairman, but, on that issue, it is important to say that, of course, the victim should always come first. Unfortunately, I have had cases in which families have reached out and indicated that significant effort has been made to deal with how the alleged perpetrator in such circumstances is accommodated and their needs met, but the individual who has brought up the concerns does not feel that they have got the same level of support. It should be the victim first and how we meet their needs. That should be the starting point in trying to address these issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will draw a line there. I am giving members extra time. If you push on the extra time, we will be up against it very quickly.

Mr Givan: I am happy to stay the allotted time, but it will encroach, because I —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Absolutely. I am mindful of that. Members, you have been given extra time. If you push beyond that, it starts to impact on members who are further down the list and put them under pressure. Please work with me on that.

Mrs Mason: Minister, every week there seems to be a new problem that is not being dealt with. I know that you do not like me listing them, but I ask you to bear with me, because there are some very important issues. We know that there are children who still do not have a school place for September. You said that 180 pupils with additional needs are still unplaced,. We have children who are sitting in inappropriate places that do not meet their needs, which is not fair. We have parents fighting for support for their children with additional needs, day in, day out. We have teachers telling us that they are absolutely exhausted and overwhelmed. SENCOs, as has already been raised, are at absolute breaking point. School leaders are struggling to keep up with the constant change and the speed of change. You are now attacking the rights of our teachers to strike, and teaching unions are balloting their members. That is all against the backdrop of schools with buckets catching rainwater that is coming in through the roof. You have less than a year left in your tenure. Have you failed as Education Minister?

Mr Givan: It is important that we do not present the picture of every school having buckets of water —.

Mrs Mason: Plenty do.

Mr Givan: The overwhelming majority do not. I have visited hundreds of schools. I was in Christian Brothers' Primary School Armagh this morning. I was with the principal for the second time, because of his concerns around maintenance and not getting the support that he has wanted for his school. Those are well documented, and there needs to be better support. However, I have been in other schools that have outstanding buildings, and they have been invested in —.

Mrs Mason: Of course there are state-of-the-art schools, but there are also schools that have rainwater coming in through the roof.

Mr Givan: There are; I accept that. There are those that need to have more investment, but I am asking for a bit more balance. Let us not represent it as if every school is in a dire situation. That is not the case. We need to do more to support those schools. We want to have the ability to have planned maintenance programmes so that it is not reactionary and we do not get to the emergency-type scenarios in which a health and safety assessment says that it is no longer fit for purpose, or that there are issues to do with boilers that break down and we need to move in. I do not want that kind of reactionary process, but that requires a recognition by all of us that there needs to be significant planned increases in our budget to allow for maintenance programmes to be more coordinated. I do not disagree that there are challenges. I have been shocked at the state of disrepair of some of the schools that I have been in, and at the conditions that they continue to deal with, but that is not the entire school estate.

Mrs Mason: Is that the answer to all of that?

Mr Givan: No, because I am addressing the school estate.

Mrs Mason: What about the school leaders who are struggling with the speed of change? What about the SENCOs who are at breaking point?

Your officials sat in a meeting — I hope that they reported back to you — in Downpatrick at which the level of fear, frustration and anger from over 60 school leaders and SENCOs was outrageous.

Mr Givan: I have met hundreds of school principals. The picture that you are representing may be reflective of some, but it is not reflective of all. At the conferences that I held, which I invited every member of the Committee to, I engaged with well over half of school principals. The feedback that we have received from that has been exceptional.

Mrs Mason: Are you seriously telling me that —

Mr Givan: I am serious that what we are doing —

Mrs Mason: — principals and SENCOs are happy with what is happening at the minute?

Mr Givan: They see what I outlined earlier: we are taking seriously workload-related challenges. We have to work through them.

Mrs Mason: They are in the middle of balloting for industrial action.

Mr Givan: There is also curriculum reform. Not only am I saying that; the people who are leading the change on all the reforms are school principals from your constituency. School principals from West Belfast and across the Province are involved in every aspect of the transformation process. The principals who spoke at those conferences, from whom members would have heard, had they attended —

Mrs Mason: What about the principals who walked out?

Mr Givan: — said —

Mrs Mason: What about the principals from my constituency, which is South Down, not West Belfast, who walked out?

Mr Givan: There were no principals who walked out from the —

Mrs Mason: Oh, there were.

Mr Givan: Sorry, when it came to 3.00 pm, there were people who walked out —

Mrs Mason: No, no.

Mr Givan: — because that was beyond the time of the conference. It is a nonsense to attribute criticism of what we are doing on the basis of a handful of people who had to leave because the meeting went beyond the scheduled time. If you want to speak to people about the changes, I will happily signpost you to principals in your constituency —

Mrs Mason: What if I signpost you to the principals who have those issues? Every time that —

Mr Givan: I meet them.

Mrs Mason: — I raise them, you wash them away completely.

Mr Givan: No, I do not.

Mrs Mason: You do, Minister.

Mr Givan: I have met them.

Mrs Mason: You do it time and again. Are you saying that you have not heard those concerns?

Mr Givan: Concerns have been raised with me since I came into office. Having listened to them, I embarked on a transformation process to improve things. I asked at the start whether people thought that our current system was working. The answer was no.

Mrs Mason: Are you going to ask them now whether your changes are working?

Mr Givan: Retaining the status quo would not help the school principals or the teachers. That is why we are working through change. That change is being led not by me but by school principals and practitioners in the education system. I could give you a list of well over 50 school leaders who are involved in all the work. The school —

Mrs Mason: I could give you a list of well over that number of people who are in complete despair about what is happening.

Mr Givan: I appeal —

Mrs Mason: You are not listening to them.

Mr Givan: I am. That is why I am making change.

Mrs Mason: They are currently balloting.

Mr Givan: That is why I am making change. If I were not listening to teachers and school leaders, I would not do anything in this role. I would have just retained the status quo.

Mrs Mason: You are bowling on with your own agenda, and with what you want to do —

Mr Givan: It is not my agenda.

Mrs Mason: — despite what they are saying.

Mr Givan: It is not my agenda. It would be unfair of me to start listing all the school leaders, because people would then say, "Oh, really? So, they're all involved in this?". I could give you the list of school leaders who spoke at those conferences. Principals said, "I know there are difficulties and challenges, but, for the first time in a long time, this is the pathway towards improving our education system".

Mrs Mason: OK.

Mr Givan: I did not say that; school principals did.

Mrs Mason: We will agree to disagree on that, because it is not me who is saying that, either; it is school principals and teachers who are saying that to me.

On the placements issue, you mentioned that 180 pupils have not been placed. How many of the pupils who have been placed have a physical place waiting for them in September?

Mr Givan: How many who are placed?

Mrs Mason: Yes. How many have an actual physical place waiting for them in September? It seems that there are children who are placed, but there is no actual physical classroom for them to go to.

Mr Givan: You will be familiar with the process that we have used in the past couple of years to make sure that we set up the physical places for those children. That continues to be developed. We have identified that, for September 2026, around 950 additional places need to be established. Work is ongoing to make sure that we can deliver on that.

Mrs Mason: We are getting towards the middle of June. I am dealing with some cases in my constituency.

Mr Givan: Hundreds of them have been placed.

Mrs Mason: But they do not have a physical place to go to.

Mr Givan: So —.

Mrs Mason: They have been taken off a list, but they do not have somewhere to go to in September.

Mr Givan: If SPiMS needs to be established or a classroom needs to be repurposed, the EA will continue that work over the summer. There will be young people who will be placed in a school, as they have been over the past two years, where contingency arrangements need to be put in place to provide support for those children, and those children then come to the school as soon as that work has been completed. Hundreds of places have been confirmed and created across those schools. We have identified the challenges. On 16 March, the EA operating officer wrote to 70 schools in areas of need. EA teams have gone out. As of 21 May, 44 of those schools had site visits and three more were being followed up. All of those are engaging to make sure that we can provide those places.

Mrs Mason: Minister, I understand that. I have two schools that have engaged with the EA. They have space, but they have had nothing back. They have not been —

Mr Givan: I would love to know. I have had an experience in my constituency where a school wanted to provide a SPiM, but the EA said no. I had to get involved. That school has not only one now but two, meeting the needs of people within the wider Carryduff area. There are examples of where I have been to schools, and they have said, "We want to provide a SPiM". I have, rightly, gone to the EA and said, "What are you doing —?"

Mrs Mason: Surely, there is something wrong. The EA is crying out for spaces, the spaces are there but they are not being taken up.

Mr Givan: Your party has members on the EA board. I hold the EA to account. It will say that schools may have capacity, but they may not always be where highest need exists. It is about identifying the places of highest need and how we create the capacity there. Some schools have said, "We have space", but there is not the demand in that area.

Mrs Mason: Meanwhile, we have children travelling from Downpatrick to west Belfast.

Mr Givan: Correct.

Mrs Mason: I have one final question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Unfortunately, Cathy, time is up. You may register a final comment, but no more.

Mrs Mason: Suzanne, may I direct a question to you, as deputy secretary?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No, we do not have time for a further enquiry, because time has beaten us. I have to draw a line there. I am happy if you want to make a final comment to close.

Mrs Mason: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is fine. The next member is Michelle.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, folks. I had not intended to ask this, but Jon raised the issue of supporting victims of assaults in schools, so the first thing that I am going to do is take the opportunity to ask about something, Minister, because you were positive about the emphasis being on the victims and their needs. It is about a young girl from our constituency — I think that you have met her. She came to me, not to complain about what had happened but because she wanted to see change. She feels that there is a gap in policy on guidance for schools in those circumstances. The school did everything that it was required to do, but her experience was negative. Will you give a commitment, today, to meet her and me to see whether there is a way for your Department to take that forward? That would be positive and something that I would like to see happen.

Mr Givan: If I can. I have no objection to meeting people who come to me looking for support. If I can, I will, of course. I have no issue with trying to meet people. All that I will say is that, at times, we are dealing with hundreds and hundreds of children. It is physically and humanly impossible to meet every child on every issue. You have asked me to meet this one. I do not know the circumstances, because I do not know the name.

Mrs Guy: You have met them before. It is not you, personally, Minister. It is action that they most want to see. I raised it with the EA when its representatives were here. You have raised it, so I would appreciate it if there was a way to take it forward. It would not require a huge resource capacity. A young girl has come to me, and she wants to see change. It would be positive, so if there is a way to make it happen, I would love to see it.

Mr Givan: Certainly, if I can, I will.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. I appreciate that.

This question is more connected to the events of the past 24 hours. You know that I have an interest in children missing in education and seeing the work that gets progressed on that. Last year, when family homes were attacked, children went missing in our education system. They disappeared from schools, and tracer letters had to be sent out to try to establish where they had gone. There has been an increase in such children. You attributed that to the disorder in Ballymena, last year. In light of what happened yesterday, I am wondering what has changed in that system. What improvements have you made since then to make sure that we are able to trace vulnerable children in our system?

Mr Givan: When children go missing from education, that is raised with the EA. It is not to say that they are missing. Obviously, they are there, but the ability for Education to identify them is the challenge. That can be for different reasons. The Ballymena scenario was largely to do with a Roma community that left, and we were not able to identify where the children had gone. They were, therefore, missing in education.

Mrs Guy: It is about getting there faster when they go; the tracer letters were sent some months later. That was one scenario, but it could end up very badly for a child in another scenario.

Mr Givan: It could. Attendance, obviously, is the starting point for me: how many people did not come to school today as a result of what happened last night? When I know that, I will be better informed of the impact. I have anecdotal evidence of people who have been affected. I do not yet have evidence that people have left the communities that they lived in as a result of some of the violence that took place, but that is not to say, unfortunately, that that has not happened. As schools identify those issues, we will seek to support them as far as we can to try to identify where those pupils are and how we can trace them and find them to make sure that there is support for them.

Mrs Guy: Not to labour the point, but there is a system vulnerability. That is one example, but there is another one that is a bigger gap, and I am keen to see that it is closed at some point.

Similarly to Cathy, I find that there are so many things to ask. I took my reference from a list of burning issues that a teacher in Lisburn gave me during a school visit. I will not go through it all, but, at the top of the list is:

From the last training day, I got some feedback that people expected more detail on what they would have to do and felt that it was still quite theoretical. The second point was on SPiMS. That teacher said that they understand the challenge around SPiMS. I have taken feedback from people in our constituency who have taken the opportunity to put SPiMS in place and have been given commitments by the EA that, for example, no children who need intimate care will be placed there, and then every child who is placed there has intimate care needs, and they do not have the facilities to handle those children. I will not get into the specifics; I am just highlighting what the list refers to and just how difficult it is for teachers. For a teacher, a day is exhausting. Everything that you described in making a case for change is not disputed, but you need your teachers to deliver it. Given their capacity, the expectation that they would deliver it all in one go seems unrealistic.

SEN takes up most of the list, so I will ask a bit about the SEN stuff. The last time you were before the Committee, we discussed local impact teams (LITs). I think that you agreed with me on the analysis that we need to do less but do it better. I think that there has been a recalibration. There is now a sharper focus on what we need to do with SEN delivery. Are we doing better? The measure of that is the outcomes for children. Again, I reflect the disconnect between what we often hear from officials here and what we hear from SENCOs and teachers on the ground. For example, children who have significant behavioural problems are placed, and if school representatives express that they cannot take that child and meet their needs, they are told, "Well, if you don't take them in your specialist provision, we will put them in your mainstream class". They feel that there is an element of horse-trading, trying to get the numbers down. The teachers want to meet the needs of the kids, so those kinds of experiences are not great. Then, when a child with behavioural support requirements comes into the system, they go through the local LIT and cannot get any support. I have asked you for figures for behavioural support in the Lisburn area. There is no resource. I have two sets of figures: one says that there is one, and the other says that there is none. You said that LITs could work as a model, but only if resourced. What is your understanding, Minister, of how those teams are being resourced right now? Is the resourcing adequate?

Mr Givan: There were a number of points there. Let me deal with the last point first. They are not being resourced in the way that they need to be if they are to be rolled out and be effective in as many areas as possible. The LITs were reorganised to be more reflective of the healthcare trusts across Northern Ireland. That has been helpful, and Committee members can be assured that the impact that it has been having, where it is available, is positive — it is not just those who are involved in the EA and LITs who tell me that. The EA recently carried out an evaluation survey of 1,500 school staff into its satisfaction levels, and 97% reported that LIT support had been either "Very positive" or "Positive". Where that support is in place, the feedback is almost universally that it is helpful and positive. My concern is that it is not available in the way that it should be across the Province, so the resources that are needed to have that all staffed up in a way that reflects what the EA and the health trusts do is not consistently available.

The model, I think, works, and that is evidence that we got from those evaluation forms, but it is not available across the Province in the way that I want it to be.

Mrs Guy: Is the core problem not that it has now created a postcode lottery for the support that kids can get? I have always said that it is a model that can work if it is resourced, but if it is not going to be resourced, are we getting to the point where we have to conclude that the model is not the best way? Should we not focus on the need and move the limited resource that we have to where the need is greatest?

Certain schools have said that they have no resource at all and that they can get no support for those children. I am not sure how that is better. Therefore, you have a model that, in theory, is good, but if it is not going to be matched by resourcing, do we have to accept that it is not going to work?

Mr Givan: The evidence shows that when it is adequately supported —.

Mrs Guy: It is not adequately supported everywhere. If we look at outcomes for kids, it is failing some kids.

Mr Givan: The initiative was started in September 2025. There are 28 local impact teams across the Province. The EA realigned that to help the health trusts to be part of that, and where it is working, it is very effective. What that says is that the model is good and will make an impact, but it needs to be properly staffed and resourced. That is not unique to my Department. It requires others to participate in that. Therefore, it is a good model, but you are right: at the moment, there is an inequity, but it needs to continue to be developed in order for it to be impactful.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There is time for one final question.

Mrs Guy: Multidisciplinary support for LITs is something that we have talked about, as is making sure that there is an interaction with Health, but, let us be honest, we all know that those interactions with Health are not working at all. I asked a question recently about how you were engaging with allied health professionals (AHPs) in local impact teams, and the answer that you gave was focused around the enhanced support model, and you did not talk about LITs at all. Are you still committed to that model and to providing health support and multidisciplinary support to LITs as intended, or is the emphasis on AHPs moving to the new enhanced support model? That is a genuine question for clarity.

Mr Givan: The answer is no. I do not want to dilute the desire for the AHPs to be part of those local impact teams. The enhanced support model for schools is to do with having specialist general support in a school to provide a whole-school response to young people who have additional needs. That is part of the reform, which we have not yet got into. Some 150 schools are involved, including some in Lisburn, and I commend Largymore Primary School as one of those, if you have not been to it. It has a different approach to SEN provision. That has reduced the number of classroom assistants and allowed employment of other general support staff with specialisms, who have been deployed to children who do not have statements of educational need. The number of children who have statements has reduced. It is not that the need has reduced; it is the fact that they do not need a statement to access support.

Some 150 schools are already engaged in that model. The EA is working with them as part of the enhanced model to see how it can refine that process before it rolls that out to other schools. They are two distinct things, but they are obviously complementary. It is not that I want AHPs to be the solution to enhanced support for SEN. They have to be part of the local impact teams.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister and panel, for being here today. My line of questioning is focused on policy around children in our education system who are often forgotten, and I want to hone in on emotional or anxiety-based school avoidance. I feel strongly that it brings together core issues, such as ADHD, autism, delays in waiting lists and getting a diagnosis, special educational needs and wider mental health issues that our young people are facing.

When it comes to record-keeping and emotional or anxiety-based school avoidance, targeted questions revealed previously that there were challenges from an IT perspective in getting that data. Has that now been rectified?

Mr Givan: I do not know the answer to that. Let me come back to you on that. If there was a data issue, I will come back to you.

Ms Hunter: Certainly. Recently, I met a constituent and her son, who was suspended from school. Before that, he had profound challenges with emotional and anxiety-based school avoidance. He recently applied for education other than at school (EOTAS) and was told that he had not met the deadline, so he still does not have access to education outside the classroom setting. Is that a stand-alone case, or has your Department seen that before?

Mr Givan: Ask me that one again, sorry.

Ms Hunter: I have a child in my constituency who has been suspended from school — a five-day suspension. He was told to apply for EOTAS, but he was then told that he had passed the deadline and, thus, cannot access that service. Is that a stand-alone case, or have you heard of that happening before?

Mr Givan: I do not know.

Ms Hunter: No problem. I will come back.

Mr Givan: The team may know the answer to that, but I do not know the specifics.

Ms Hunter: It is a good thing that I am finding gaps.

Dr Suzanne Kingon (Department of Education): If it was a suspension, there would be exceptional teaching arrangements rather than EOTAS, which is a long-term placement for education other than at school. There might be exceptional teaching arrangements for the period of the suspension or something like that. We can certainly get more information.

Ms Hunter: No problem. Thank you. I will go back to the suspension point. If a child has been given a five-day suspension, what support mechanisms are available to them?

Mr Givan: If they are suspended, they are obviously suspended for particular reasons.

Ms Hunter: Of course. Children do not get suspended for no reason. Evidently, there could be —

Dr Kingon: It is a legal requirement for all schools to provide work for children during a period of suspension from school.

Ms Hunter: Is that mandatory?

Dr Kingon: Yes.

Ms Hunter: Is that monitored and followed up by your Department to ensure that every child gets that?

Dr Kingon: There is a facility. The first port of call is a complaint to the school. It would be for the child or their representative — a parent — to raise a complaint to the board of governors in the first instance, rather than to the Department.

Ms Hunter: OK. No problem.

I will bounce back to anxiety-based school avoidance. I know that you said that there is a lack of clarity around the IT issue, but does your Department have codes for the different reasoning behind school absence?

Mr Givan: Yes.

Ms Hunter: OK, so you are monitoring whether it is bullying, anxiety or ADHD. What trends have you seen?

Mr Givan: Let me give you the specific data on the various codes to record attendance. Suzanne, are you aware of the different codes? When it comes to attendance, there are some codes that we record, but I am happy to give the specifics.

Ms Hunter: Yes, that would be useful.

Mr Givan: Chairman, this is an example —

Ms Hunter: It would be fantastic if you had them today.

Mr Givan: — of how, if we knew these specific questions in advance, I would be able to give that information. Perhaps members could provide me with that in the future.

Ms Hunter: Next, I will follow up with an opinion question; is that OK?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is fair.

Ms Hunter: From the statistics, we know that more than 500 parents have been held accountable — prosecuted — for their child's non-attendance at school. Minister, from speaking with the parents, families and pupils, I know that they are good kids. They are struggling with anxiety and bullying or are perhaps waiting for ADHD assessment — or saving up for that, given the profound waiting lists in Northern Ireland. They are good kids, and their parents have been prosecuted for non-attendance. The parents feel left behind and not listened to, and they believe that it is because our schools are under significant pressure that their child really struggles with a classroom setting. Do you think that it is appropriate that those parents are being prosecuted, or do you think that, given the challenges that our schools and young people are experiencing, there is another way?

Mr Givan: I think that the figures for prosecution are in the low double figures. Going down the route of prosecution is the last resort, and I do not think that the EA would ever take that course of action lightly. My understanding is that, unfortunately, there are examples of parents not sending their children to school despite all the effort that goes in. Welfare officers put significant resource and effort into engaging with families to provide support, and if the judgement is made by those educational professionals that it is not reasonable for parents to not have their children go to school, it is right that a decision can be taken to ensure that the child does not miss out on an education. If you have exhausted every possible opportunity to provide support to the child, are we saying that, if the parents are refusing, there is no way to enable those children to go to school? We have to get the balance between the right level of support and making sure that, as a matter of last resort, if it is necessary to help make sure that a child comes to school, such a decision is not taken lightly by the EA. I would not want to remove that option from the EA.

Ms Hunter: Moving on, Suzanne, I mentioned previously that point 8 of the 10-point plan for TransformED focuses on educational disadvantage. On a point of clarity, does the Department of Education define educational disadvantage on the basis of maternal education level and free school meals?

Dr Kingon: Our measures of educational disadvantage vary among different programmes. For example, targeting social need (TSN) funding through the common funding formula is based on free school meals. For other programmes, we look at levels of educational attainment. I am aware that there is a strong link between the level of maternal education and educational outcomes for children. It is one of the strongest correlations. It is not a correlation that we use for any funded programmes.

Ms Hunter: OK. I have raised the following question before. From speaking with parents and young people in my constituency, I am picking up that trauma in the home often acts as a barrier to education, such as domestic violence or abuse that they have endured or witnessed, and there are over 40,000 children of addicts or alcoholics in Northern Ireland. Often, that cohort of young people is unseen. They do not talk about it. How are we targeting those children, and how will TransformED help to transform their lives and education?

Mr Givan: Obviously, if it is completely unknown and is not being flagged up through the normal processes with statutory agencies, it is difficult to identify.

Ms Hunter: How will you change that, Minister?

Mr Givan: Well, a lot of it is detected. That is why schools engage through the various statutory agencies that exist. They provide information, whether through health visitors, the police or other organisations. Where we as a society are aware that domestic abuse is taking place, of course there are significant measures that can be used to provide support. If you are asking me about the absence of anybody from any agency, or any neighbour, or anyone in society coming forward and saying, "We believe that this child may be in a home where there are significant issues", it is difficult for someone to know that that is the case.

Ms Hunter: Speaking on TransformED, though, if those children are known, how will TransformED help support them on their educational journey?

Mr Givan: As regards whether they are suffering domestic abuse in the house?

Ms Hunter: Looking at being trauma-informed in our education and school settings, and supporting those children and seeing that the challenges that they face at home are shaping their ability to prosper in our education system.

Mr Givan: I am trying to understand the line of questioning. If the question is about a child, whom nobody knows is suffering domestic abuse in the house, that is difficult for any organisation, but I would say that —

Ms Hunter: If they are known.

Mr Givan: Oh, if they are. Absolutely.

Ms Hunter: I am talking about, in general terms, if a child is suffering from trauma.

Mr Givan: There are distinct and separate supports for a child. If child is in a home where domestic abuse is taking place, there is very specific support that will be provided. Schools will be engaged. Those school principals and leaders will be part of an ongoing team that will actively manage what is happening. It is not that TransformED will be doing something that is not already there. School teachers are adept at identifying whether a child has issues in the home and trying to see what is happening. As soon as they are aware of it, the schools proactively engage with all the different agencies on how they can manage that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to draw a line under that at this stage.

Ms Hunter: Yes. I am more than happy. On a last point, Minister —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We do not have time to open up a new enquiry at this stage. A final comment, if you do not mind.

Ms Hunter: Well, I guess, then, that I will shut down. We have seen the increased violence on our streets, and I want to reiterate the importance of the Youth Service in stepping up to provide support and safeguarding. When we look at the long-term strategies around peace-building, it is important for our young people that we ensure that, although our budgets are tight, we need our youth funding to be secure.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister, I might invite you to speak briefly to that. Given what we saw on the streets yesterday, the role of diversionary youth services is really important and at the forefront of a lot of people's minds. Cara raised that at the start of the meeting. Will you stand up additional support for the Youth Service in the current context and in the longer-term funding picture? Give just a brief response.

Mr Givan: This morning, I engaged with the Education Authority, and that was one of the issues that we talked about. The youth diversionary team in the EA and the Youth Service are actively engaged where there are difficulties. I referred to that in my opening comments.

At 12.00 noon today, we put the youth strategy out to consultation. The strategy has been worked through with the EA, the community and voluntary sector and uniformed youth organisations. The support that we are going to provide to youth organisations is outlined in the public consultation document. I know that the Committee will not have had an opportunity yet to look through that, but I will very much welcome any feedback on whether we have moved in the right direction of travel in how we support youth organisations and the framework that the EA will operate in. That is now available. Danny is not here today, but he has asked regularly about youth work and youth support. There is now a document out that will shape the funding framework and support all that. It will be important to get feedback from members, and I would welcome that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No doubt, the Committee will engage on that. It is an issue that we have been paying attention to, so thank you for that reminder. Cara raised the issue of youth services at the start of the meeting.

Mrs Middleton: I have had very positive engagement with the school council of Sion Mills Integrated Primary School. I am visiting the school tomorrow, and I am really looking forward to that. It is going to be a positive meeting. There are a few issues that they want to talk to me about, but we should all be listening to children when they want to raise something, so I am really looking forward to that.

Minister, I thank you and your team for being here today. Thank you for your answers and for the information that you have shared. Before I ask a question, I want to say that, when you see a need for change, it is often difficult to be proactive on that. I have been watching for a long time, however, and you have been proactive and have had the grace to listen to people, even under difficult circumstances, so thank you for that. It is imperative that we roll out TransformED at the proper pace, and I believe that that is what is happening. I am glad that you have worked with those who create the foundation of our education system, namely educators and school leaders. That is right and proper.

Will you outline what the next stage of TransformED will look like, how you see that being received and, importantly, the benefits that you foresee? Any school leader whom I have spoken to has given me positive feedback on TransformED. Are there any updates that you can share today?

Mr Givan: Thank you, Julie. Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for what you are doing on it. I am sure that you will brief me on the Sion Mills visit in due course.

Mr Sheehan: If you go yourself, Paul [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: I have visited well over 200 schools.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Deputy Chair, let us make sure that we let Julie ask her questions.

Mr Givan: He is saying that in jest. I know that there is no animosity in that suggestion. I did not get it. I am sure that there would have been a good reason. I do not just decide casually not to go to a school event. There are very few that I have ever cancelled on, because I know the work that goes into a visit and the disappointment if I do not go. I do not have my diary to hand to be able to say, "This is the reason why", but there are very few invitations that I decline, because I know that a lot of work is put into those visits.

Mr Sheehan: All the more reason to go.

Mr Givan: I welcome the feedback that you are getting on TransformED. With regard to the wider points, the next 12 months are going to be important. The pace is going to be phased. All the work that has been taken forward is at a high level, but it has utilised local practitioners and international experts. We have prepared with the teacher professional learning (TPL) funding and have provided training days. Teachers will often say that a new policy comes in with no preparation and no training provided and they are just expected to able to do it. I have provided specific days for schools to allow them to have training related to TransformED, and I have engaged with the professionals in order to do that. The next 12 months is about moving from high-level policy development informed by local practitioners towards an associated delivery phase.

Within a very short time, we have had exceptional people involved in the development of the curriculum for every subject, from the earliest years right up to upper sixth. That has been led by principals and school leaders from every sector. They are phenomenally talented people. I am indebted to them, and I have no doubt that the Committee will want to hear from those who have been involved. That will go out to public consultation. It will be a lengthy consultation, because it is important that we get feedback around the curriculum. It will be the basis for what is taught for, hopefully, not as long as the current curriculum, which has been over 20 years. You should be reviewing your curriculum and evolving it every five or six years. That is common practice. Our curriculum has not changed in 20 years, and it is not a very good curriculum. Therefore, this is timely. That will go out to consultation. I ask members to engage in and look at that and to listen to the teaching professionals who have developed it. I have just enabled this work. I have not been involved in writing any of the curriculum. I have allowed the teaching profession to do it; this is the work of the teaching profession. I appeal to members to please, please give it the opportunity to get a proper hearing before rushing out to give a view simply because it is TransformED and, therefore, you feel that you have to be against it. That would be a reckless thing to do. That will go out for consultation. It is a key step in the process that we are going to take forward.

The religious education syllabus will be going out soon. It is very close. It is not quite there yet, but it will be coming out soon. There will also be the publication of the pedagogical principles. When "pedagogy" was used when I was first a Minister, I said, "What is that?". I am sure that members know what it is: it is about how you teach. I could not even pronounce it. One of the people involved said, "I don't even try. I just say, 'This is how you teach'". There will be guidance around the curriculum. We need to develop high-quality resources, because there has been criticism that a curriculum is published but we do not provide the resources. The development of resources will align with the curriculum.

Teacher training on professional learning will be developed. A digital platform is also going to help to support that delivery. There is also the reform of assessment. We have already introduced some of that into our schools. That will help to strengthen the system-level checks. That is important, even in P1. It will be a quick snapshot of where a child is. We do not have that. Schools have it, but we do not have it at a system-wide level. There is inconsistency. That will be important. There is also progression on the new GCSE and A-level specifications.

Importantly, there will be leadership training for middle leaders. We have a tier of principals, but, as is the case in everything, there should be succession planning. Every organisation needs the next tier to come through. Sometimes, it can be scary for a vice principal who becomes a principal and, therefore, the final person who is accountable. We have recognised that there is a need to support that middle tier of management that connects from the teacher to the principal. There is a middle tier that needs to have support. A new leadership programme is being developed for that. There is also professional learning, subject networks and the RAISE programme.

There is, therefore, a lot of work being developed that will have positive impacts for education in the next 12 months.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you, Minister. I will make a brief comment and then ask a second brief question. I welcome all of that information. It is wonderful. I say that not just as an MLA but as a mother of young children. I am genuinely excited about the changes that are happening and the education system that my children will be able to avail themselves of. I thank the team for that.

I will make a personal observation as a new MLA. Since I started in Stormont, I have heard, multiple times, from various parties that TransformED is your agenda, your work and your idea. I believe — I have believed it for some time — that that completely undermines the work of the education leaders and experts who are driving it forward. That is my observation and something that I wanted to put on record.

My second question is to do with the childcare subsidy. I commend you for your commitment to working families. I have seen the benefits of it in my constituency. It has been a great help to many. Will you outline what feedback your Department has received from local registered childcare providers on how easy they have found the adaptation process? Given the current financial challenges, what further steps could be taken to provide further assistance?

Mr Givan: The scheme is very straightforward in how it works. Of course, when it was introduced, it was new, and a lot of support was required. It is a straightforward scheme to operate. That is why the uptake has been so successful. It has drawn down tens of millions of pounds of support and increased the drawdown from the UK, because it is tied into its tax-free allowance. It has undoubtedly been very beneficial to parents. With it, however, is the same pressure of increasing costs that every sector faces. That is why we have increased the cap: the value of the 15% has continued to increase over the past two years to help to mitigate the rising costs associated with the pressures on other providers.

My concern, which I have raised with the Executive, relates to the funding for the childcare subsidy scheme. The childcare subsidy scheme sits within the Executive-funded early learning and childcare strategy. From that, we fund Sure Start, and we have expanded Sure Start. We have helped to support additional support in preschool settings for children with special needs; have provided support to many early years providers; and have turned part-time nursery places into full-time nursery places — we have been able to bring on thousands of places in nursery that are now full time. That is all part of early learning: the subsidy is just one element of it, although it is an important one.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Can you bring your remarks on this to a close as quickly as possible?

Mr Givan: Some of that £55 million of funding came in-stream. What was announced in the draft Budget, if not addressed, would be a real-terms cut and would have implications for what is being developed by the Executive. That money does not sit in my Department; it is ring-fenced funding. I can advise the Committee that I have put in an Executive paper to request the funding that is needed, which is £75 million not £55 million. If that funding is not provided, there will be real-world consequences for those organisations. I am not saying this to create unnecessary alarm, but there is a paper before the Executive, which I have put in by urgent procedure because it is becoming time-critical. I again appeal to members of the Committee to help me to ensure that that vital funding is put forward to allow the work on the early years and childcare to be supported. I need the support of other parties in the Executive: my party is committed to it, but I need others to support me.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you, Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is an appropriate place to draw a line. Thank you, Julie.

There is one more member to come in. I am conscious that you have been talking for two hours, Minister. You have been very generous with your time and are probably ready for a lie down in a darkened room. I will bring David in, and we will then let you go.

Mr Givan: David will bring the light.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David will not use his full time. He never does.

Mr Givan: Or maybe he will not bring the light; I do not take that for granted with my colleagues. [Laughter.]

Mr Brooks: I got along to some of the TransformED events. I have heard very little other than positivity about those events. In every school in my constituency that I go into, I very deliberately ask their thoughts on TransformED to try to get a genuine sense of that. They have been almost exclusively positive about TransformED and the principles thereof. Some have said that they felt that the pace might be going a little too fast as things have progressed, but it has been no stronger than that. That is the picture that I see in schools in my area and what I have heard from principals whom I have spoken to from outside my area. That is not what I am going to ask a question on, though.

As Jon was finishing off his questioning, he probably wanted to go into this in a bit more depth, and I was looking to ask about it anyway. The Committee has routinely heard about assaults on teachers. Some of those assaults have been SEN-related, which is a different matter, but we have heard about an increase in injuries to teachers and so on. We have also heard talk about misogyny and the toxicity around that. In the context of a picture of the behaviour of some pupils in some schools maybe worsening, are there any plans to look at behaviour policy?

Mr Givan: The data shows that figures for suspensions and detentions are significant. It is not a small figure; it is a very high figure. That tells me that there is a challenge for our schools with maintaining discipline. I will not repeat the point about the age of criminal responsibility — that is at an extremity, although it is nevertheless important — but there is a wider challenge when it comes to maintaining good behaviour in schools, which is vital to the delivery of education. Different approaches are being applied elsewhere. I think, I have already provided this information: I want to take a look at the guidance on best practice when it comes to behaviour.

I am not an expert on that, but it would be timely to look at behavioural practice in our schools, so we will carry out a piece of work to look at the approaches that different schools apply, the lessons to be learned and the most effective way to do that. That varies, but there is a responsibility on us as a Department to provide guidance through the Education Authority on best practice. It is timely to look at behavioural issues in our schools. That is borne out by the feedback and data. It has also been borne out by my discussions with the trade unions. One of the trade unions that I met indicated that there is real concern about the behavioural challenges that you have articulated and a need to look at the policy on that.

I want to respond to that. Let us look at it. I have no predetermined view. When I became Minister, I came in with no agenda around what we are now doing. I allowed the evidence to inform what we should do on the basis of what the practitioners told me. The same approach will be taken to behaviour policy. I want to hear what people think is the best way to do things and then support schools.

Mr Brooks: That will be timely. It will reassure teachers to hear that that is being considered and brought forward.

Despite cross-party support for the idea that mobile phones in schools are problematic, there has sometimes been ridicule of the measures that you have proactively brought forward to address the problem. We have had the pouch scheme pilot; will you reflect on that and on whether there will be any policy change on mobile phones to address the issue?

Mr Givan: King's College London was asked to carry out an independent evaluation. I do not have that yet. It will give a more definitive view on the matter. However, we all recognise that social media is a curse. It is a curse even for members of the Committee, because they are on it when meetings are taking place. It is a distraction, including in our schools. When you need to engage with a teacher, distraction will clearly impact on the learning that you receive. It has an impact not just educationally but socially. From the feedback that I have had from my team, I think that there will be a bit of variance among the schools that participated. It will depend on how well the pilot was implemented. Some schools decided to apply the same policy to teachers; others did not. That is interesting. Some pupils felt, "If it is not applied to the whole school, why do I need to do that?".

Obviously, decisions need to be taken, but some schools applied the policy to the entire school population to ensure high levels of consistency and implementation. I refer to St Ronan's College in Lurgan, for example. It is one of the largest schools in the Province, with 1,800 pupils. I wanted it to be included because of that very fact. I have been in the school on a number of occasions. The principal there, Fiona, not only speaks highly of the policy but has told me that the introduction of the mobile pouches is the single most transformative change that has happened in her school. It has increased educational outcomes and social interaction and has improved behavioural practice. Do not believe me when I say that, if you do not want to: ask the principal. That is the genuine feedback, and not only that: it continued, "The pouches were provided to all our school pupils. A new cohort is now coming into year 8. Please, please tell me that this will continue to be supported in our school", because of the transformation that it has brought. Pupils have also spoken highly of the scheme, because they have engaged in much higher levels of interaction. Schools ought to be a completely safe haven. In a physical sense, they are, but they are not when the outside world can get to pupils through their phone.

We all recognise that mobile phones are a real problem and challenge for schools. We should take whatever steps we can to support schools. I will wait for the evaluation to come to me, but the evidence that I have had, certainly from St Ronan's, is that the scheme has been transformative for that school. Chair, in due course, the Committee might like to ask some of those principals to come in and give their feedback rather than just hearing it from me.

Mr Brooks: That would be useful.

Another issue that people agree is going to be significant in the future of our education system — you have touched on it already today — is AI. Some people think that it will be transformational. At the same time, the cost of licences for the Department has become a catch-all issue; some people say, "Well, why can't we do this if we can spend that amount of money on AI licences?". This morning, I talked to a school leader who said that AI will be transformational for workload if used correctly. He listed all the things that it could be applied to and help with in that regard. He said that, if you work in a profession such as teaching, AI is not going to take your job, but someone who knows how to use AI better than you may well do. With that in mind, will you speak to how, you think, AI is going to be better used in our education system — he said that it will be a key part of the pedagogy going forward — and what that means for our children and teachers?

Mr Givan: With the right guard rails — it is important that proper protections be in place — AI can be a powerful tool in helping to enable teachers, who can never be replaced — far from it — when it comes to school administration and in the delivery of lessons and assessment methods associated with that. With the right guard rails in place, AI can be effective. If, for example, a teacher wanted to create a lesson plan on part of our curriculum, it is vital that any AI technology used drew information from only our curriculum. If it produced a lesson plan based on a curriculum from another part of the world or on open-source data that would be terrible. It is important that it be effectively harnessed. However, here is the challenge: if we do not harness it and work with the right people to develop it, I think that the statistics detailing the number of incidents of teachers' seeking information through AI in our schools to help with lesson plans would be frightening. It is already happening; teachers are actively using open-source data. If you do not do it in a very controlled and managed way, people will inevitably say, "If this'll help me to enhance my job, why would I not use this technology?". It is already happening. We need to make sure that it happens in a regulated way that draws on the right source material. We have developed partnerships and are taking that forward in order to make sure that it is harnessed effectively.

Mr Brooks: I have one more quick —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): One final comment, and then we will draw things to a close.

Mr Brooks: I am sure that the Minister will be very quick in his comments. I invite him to comment on the recent court victory over the challenge to the decision on the Bangor integrated schools. Does he feel that the integrated sector should reflect on whether it was an appropriate use of resources and time to fight a battle around schools that had such a small percentage of their —?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David, your interpretation of "final comment" has been quite loose.

Mr Brooks: The Minister will understand the question. I am sure that he will be succinct in his —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Minister, it would be inappropriate not to let you respond, but I ask you to be brief. You have already referenced your schedule, and we have further business to do.

Mr Givan: I appreciate that. I suspect that, if the judgement had gone the other way, it would not have taken until David's questions for it to be asked about. That is notable.

The Court of Appeal decision backed up the High Court decision, which very comprehensively dismissed the challenge. The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with that. At the time, many members in this room and people elsewhere made serious accusations about the decision process. I was found, again, to have acted entirely legally. Others can reflect on the comments that they made in that respect. The Court of Appeal decision was the correct one. It will help to ensure that, whenever we take such decisions, we know the basis on which we do so. That basis is legislation that was passed in the Assembly. It was supported by some members in this room who are now critical of those decisions. I cannot act outwith the law when it comes to those decisions. I will continue to take decisions guided by the legislation.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will draw a line there. That was a very interesting final comment. Integrated education representatives are scheduled to attend the Committee after the summer from the Integrated Education Fund and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education. Hopefully, we can pick up all the issues around the current state of play with integrated education in Northern Ireland at that stage.

That brings the evidence session to a close. It ran slightly over time, but not by much. I thank the Minister and officials for their generous time today. It was a long time to be answering questions, so we appreciate it. It is not always a meeting of minds on all issues, but your time is appreciated. I also thank members for all their contributions.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Chair and members.