Nick Mathison
Strangford · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“That second part is important. In the scrutiny of the Minister's Bill on school uniforms, we got a little tied up over how we could build in provisions on PE, but, when we got to work on this Bill, we found that there is a simple formulation that will ensure that participation in sport and PE, which, we should remember, is a statutory par…”
“<BR /> <BR />On the basis of that feedback and the other evidence that we received, two draft approaches to developing the Bill were considered. The first was to create a separate, stand-alone Bill with a stand-alone right for pupils to be afforded the choice to wear trousers and to set that out in law.”
“Many schools do that really well, but others, regrettably, do not. To me, only legislation will guarantee the behaviour change that we need. It is not good enough for a Minister to say to young people, "But I give you permission to go and campaign. You run the campaign. Look at Rhea and Astrid: didn't they do so well?".”
“I will name a few: the school uniform must be affordable, so schools have no autonomy on that; and schools must consult with parents when they are changing their policy, so they have no autonomy on that. I could go through every one of the guidelines.”
“depending on the activity. That was to ensure that the need for appropriate clothing for sporting activities was reflected. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, it is a permissive Bill. It is simply focused on creating a universal right to have the choice to wear trousers and enshrining that in the guidance.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not speak for long, and I do not plan to rehearse everything that has been said. However, I begin by doing something that I overlooked when I spoke at the beginning: thanking the Deputy Chair of the Committee who first proposed the Bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,029 lines we hold for Nick Mathison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 21.
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he provide a more detailed update on the clean air strategy?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It outlines the simple and powerful message that there will be more time for deeper learning and less pressure to "teach to the test", which is something that, I imagine, everybody here will support. If that is his view, is he content that, for much of P6 and into P7, our children are taught to the test? Was this not an opportunity to do something about that approach to delivering teaching and learning in our schools, which is really there just to facilitate academic selection rather than to achieve the best outcomes for our children?”
“It is about delivering for the children who need it in our system.”
“We need to be clear: where can investment be delivered in the transformation plan for it to make a real difference? Families and children need it desperately. We cannot waste any more time in this mandate with pilots. We need to move beyond that. <BR /> <BR />We also need assurances — clear assurances — that the failure to effectively and appropriately place our children with SEN will not be repeated on this Minister's watch. I hope that we hear that coming through clearly. <BR /> <BR />I hope that we can move the tone of the debate on. I look forward to the Education Committee's inquiry into the matter. I have no intention of personalising that debate. I want to hear the evidence of parents, children, young people and teachers and to listen to them. This is not about political point-scoring. It is not about personal attacks.”
“It is ambitious in scope, and, by that definition, it is difficult to track and measure success, so we need the Minister to set out clearly what the delivery plan will do to make parents and children feel that the system is different and that something has changed. We have 18 months left of the mandate. We are in year 2 of the five-year plan. We really are at the point where parents are impatient for delivery. When will things change? <BR /> <BR />The challenge is clear, and I am not here to attribute blame to anybody. There have been years of systemic failure, but I have no doubt that the people working on the issues in the EA and the Department are committed to delivering change. However, we need to be realistic about where we are. Resource is extremely scarce. We are beyond further reviews, pilots, trials, testing and reviewing.”
“However, with all those caveats noted — I say this in good faith — I ask the Minister to come back to the Assembly with a clear plan for how he will deal with placements specifically and how he will ensure that, in the areas and the schools where it is identified that placements are required, the placements will be delivered in those settings. It cannot be enough to just ask politely for schools to help. We have to go beyond that. <BR /> <BR />My time will not permit me to speak to the delivery plan in detail, but it is welcome that a plan around transformation has come forward. However, it is a big, complex document.”
“We have already heard that the numbers of children presenting with SEN are rising. Money is in short supply, and the Minister does not tire of reminding us of that. Crucially, as I have referenced, we operate a system where schools seem to behave as independent entities and can say no to a specialist provision if they wish to. I know that schools do that for a range of reasons: they do not have confidence that they will be supported; they are worried about whether there will be enough resource; or they are worried that they will be asked to deliver something at the eleventh hour, with not enough time.”
“He was clear that the level of pressure and leverage that they had to apply to schools to get those children placed was unacceptable. He did not have confidence that, for the year ahead, there was a clear road map, a clear pathway for ensuring that children would be placed. That is simply because he does not have the resources at his disposal to ensure that, when he approaches a school and asks them to take a placement, he has a mechanism to say where the placement will go. It is an ask; it is a request. We would not accept that in the mainstream system. We would not consider area planning to be that we ask schools whether they would like some more places. That is not how it operates. <BR /> <BR />I do not downplay the challenge to the EA and the Department in dealing with the issue.”
“I do not underestimate the scale of that challenge — that is not said lightly — but it is clear to me that, if that was how we ran the mainstream admission system, parents would be outraged. However, we seem to have reached a point where it has become normalised for our children with SEN to remain unplaced, particularly at key transition years. <BR /> <BR />It is important to challenge any narrative that this year was, in some way, better because the raw numbers may have been lower. Of course, it is welcome that no children are officially unplaced at the moment. However, we were clear when we heard evidence from the EA in Committee that the director who was speaking in that evidence session would not let members make the statement that that was an improvement. He was clear that it is not an improvement.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. I am conscious of time, but, yes, we would be keen to engage further with the Health Committee. I felt that our concurrent Committee meeting in the previous session was really effective in drawing out some of the challenges around workforce and some of the lack of data that we have on the workforce that is even present in the education system from the health sector. <BR /> <BR />It has never been acceptable that children with SEN are routinely left unplaced at their key transition years in our education system. It is not acceptable that, despite years of the problem being highlighted and after multiple reports and recommendations, which have been referenced here today, the Department has still not got to grips with the problem.”
“I record my appreciation for the engagement that I have had with classroom assistants in Castle Gardens Primary School in my constituency. They highlighted very clearly to me the level of disparity between the different contracts that exist, even within one school, as well as the pay and job security disparities, the pressures that that puts on staff and the impact that it has on their morale. I therefore fully support the proposals in Mr Gaston's amendment. On Mr Carroll's amendment, I absolutely agree that the system should deliver a one-to-one classroom assistant for those children who require one. We should, however, also be open to creative thinking on the best way in which to meet children's needs effectively.”
“I do not, however, discount the work that the Minister has delivered in this mandate on the SEN reform agenda, nor do I doubt his officials' commitment to delivering on it. <BR /> <BR />Moving on, I do not intend to rehash what has already been covered in the debate. The motion is clear in setting out the problems in the SEN system and in what it is asking for, and it seems that there is going to be support for it across the Chamber. I will add to my colleagues' comments about the amendments. We have no issue with supporting them, and I find myself in the very strange position of saying that I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything that Mr Gaston said today.”
“That freedom of information request came back stating very clearly that officials were briefed on the scale of the challenge in February 2025 and that the Minister was formally corresponded with in March. At no point have I suggested that that is when the SEN crisis began, and to suggest so is clearly an exaggeration and a misrepresentation. I will, however, highlight the point that the Minister was aware of likely numbers probably much earlier, but he certainly was as of February 2025. I therefore question why he waited until June 2025 to go out to schools to ask them whether they would please help. I do not think that it is inappropriate to say that that was too little, too late.”
“I will leave my remarks there in that regard, because, ultimately, the debate is about the parents, children and young people who need effective SEN services, not about personalities in the Chamber. I reiterate, however, that my record on and commitment to delivering the reform of SEN services is very clear. <BR /> <BR />Let me speak to some of the facts that the Minister highlighted. He referenced comments that I made about a freedom of information request that I had submitted to the EA asking for some specific information about when the Minister was formally notified of the scale of the challenge of placements for September 2025 and about the likely numbers involved.”
“<BR /> <BR />I was going to begin my remarks by saying that it was to be welcomed that we have had a debate with such a positive tone and one that parents of children with special educational needs who were watching would feel had adopted the approach that is required, through taking the issues seriously and ensuring that the difficulties, challenges and distress that parents have been through over the past number of months were properly acknowledged. The Minister, however, had other ideas, making some highly personalised attacks and using some really interesting distraction techniques in order to deflect from the issues. That was entirely unnecessary, because I agree with much of what he said in his contribution, and I want to support him. It was disappointing that he felt the need to personalise the debate in the way in which he did.”
“I begin by adding my words of welcome to Mr Burrows. I look forward to working with you on the Education Committee. I add to the tributes to Colin Crawford, whom I worked with for a short time on the Committee. I found him to be a gentleman. I suspect that you, Mr Burrows, may express your views slightly more forthrightly than Colin ever did at the Committee, and I look forward to that. I wish Colin all the best in his future endeavours.”
“The Member mentioned the cost of the delivery plan. It is not broken down into clear cost lines for all the actions. Does the Member not think that having a more detailed cost analysis would help us to decide what we really need to deliver from the plan and should prioritise?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we had discussions in Committee on article 4(1)(c) and views diverged. Will the Member accept that, as I outlined in my speech, we have youth settings that have no such provisions around reasonable force but are able to provide excellent provision for young people and that, perhaps, there are lessons that we could learn there that could be transferred to the education system?”
“Everyone in our education system deserves better, and I hope that the motion will attract support across the House and create the reset that is needed to deliver on the departmental recommendations that were made back in 2022 and that had full ministerial support at that time.”
“I note that the teaching unions have raised concerns that repealing 4(1)(c) could leave them unable to deal with situations that emerge and leave them exposed. However, if article 4(1)(c) were repealed, teachers would still be left with protection in scenarios where an offence needs to be prevented, where there is a risk of personal injury or damage to property and in any scenario where there is clear risk to life and limb. I will also add that I had clarity from the Minister just this week saying that, in our youth settings, there is no such provision around use of reasonable force and that those settings are able to provide effective provisions for our young people. <BR /> <BR />In closing, there cannot be any delay in taking forward the calls in the motion. The report and its recommendations in 2022 were clear and should be enacted.”
“For me, that sums up the context that we are in.”
“The previous DUP Education Minister committed to the removal of that article, but the current Education Minister has not demonstrated his intent in that regard. We hope to hear from him today to bring some clarity on that. <BR /> <BR />Before I finish, I want to highlight some evidence that, I think, the Autism Reviewer provided to all Members on the motion. It provides some helpful reflections on the issue. I will quote directly from that evidence:”
“As the motion states, we urgently need statutory guidance, and training that would flow from that, that is non-discriminatory and in the best interests of the child. It would protect pupils, teachers and others working in education settings, who are very clear that they are asking for robust guidance for clarity on what course of action is to be appropriately followed in what are often incredibly challenging situations. <BR /> <BR />As highlighted, there was one aspect of the motion on which there was not unanimous agreement. I want to be clear that Alliance is entirely supportive of the removal of article 4(1)(c) of the 1998 order. In my view, it does not serve our pupils or our school staff to maintain that on the statute book.”
“Regrettably, we have heard how many of those parents and their children have been failed by our system, yet they are using their voices to ensure that other families do not have to suffer the same experiences. Hopefully, the motion today is an opportunity for the Assembly to put on record that we stand with them and that we stand in support of our special school staff, teachers and school leaders. <BR /> <BR />In 2023, the Department of Education launched a consultation on draft statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in educational settings. Since then, as has been mentioned, a number of key stakeholders have raised concerns about the process that then ensued to create the guidance.”
“However, I want to be very clear that, from the Committee's perspective, there is no desire to detract from the fact that all members are agreed on the urgent need to break the impasse on the delivery of robust and effective statutory guidance on restrictive practice in schools, which will ultimately protect children, young people and staff alike. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some closing remarks as an Alliance Party MLA and education spokesperson. I would like to add my personal tribute to Deirdre Shakespeare and all the other parental campaigners who have worked so hard to put this issue on the agenda. I also put on record my thanks to the staff who work in our mainstream and special schools, in particular, and who manage the complex behaviours of children and young people, often in environments that are not fit for purpose.”
“The fact that, over a decade since that report was published, no substantive action has been taken forward is deeply disappointing to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />It should be noted, in the interests of balance, that members of the Committee agreed on largely all the asks in the motion that I have highlighted, with the exception of the repeal of article 4(1)(c). Therefore, in the Committee's deliberations on bringing the motion forward, DUP representatives on the Committee brought an alternative proposal for wording that did not include that call. I am sure that those Members will speak to that directly in their remarks.”
“We have heard repeatedly from our special school leaders and staff that the environments in which they operate often drive some of the challenges that they face. The final ask is to commission an updated response to the ETI report of 2013 — over a decade ago — on challenging behaviours in special schools, which is clearly long overdue. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard many reports of school staff being injured while working in our schools, as young people with complex needs, who have become highly dysregulated, display behaviours that, in some cases, cannot be managed safely. That is a profound failure of our education system to meet the needs of the young people in question and to provide safe working environments for our education staff.”
“I will summarise the key asks of the motion, as it is important to be clear about what the Committee was concerned with. <BR /> <BR />First, the Minister should commit to delivering guidance and training for schools on restrictive practice that is non-discriminatory and child-rights compliant. The second ask is the repeal of article 4(1)(c), which can, as the motion states, go hand in hand with other necessary legislative changes, if required, to protect teachers operating in roles where, undoubtedly, many complex scenarios emerge. The third ask is to address the issues with the special school estate, where accommodation, often not fit for purpose, can exacerbate behaviours of concern among young people with complex needs.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has, therefore, tabled the motion, having reflected on the distressing reports of instances in which restrictive practices have been applied inappropriately and where children have been restrained, like Harry Shakespeare was, when there appears to have been no good reason for doing so. The Committee has also tabled the motion after reflecting on the evidence of special school leaders, who have stated to us that they need the statutory guidance in order to support the work that they do every day with children who have complex needs. <BR /> <BR />I want to be very clear that the motion is about protecting not only children but staff and teachers in our schools. I was conscious that, when it was read out, it was a very long motion, and that is possibly what you get when you agree a Committee motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee heard from the Royal College of Nursing, which highlighted particular issues that led to its withdrawal from the stakeholder engagement group process altogether. It highlighted concerns that Education and Health guidance was at risk of diverging significantly and that the proposed Education guidance, without the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the 1998 order — I remind Members that that is about the use of force in educational settings in order to prevent behaviour that is prejudicial to good order and discipline — may not be human-rights compliant.”
“Those recommendations get to the crux of the issues that are core to the motion. There were a range of other recommendations, but I do not have time to go into them in detail. <BR /> <BR />It is important to note that the aforementioned recommendations, and all the others in the 2022 report, were accepted in their entirety by the then Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen. The stage was very much set for the report's recommendations to be delivered. Over the past year, however, the Committee has heard evidence from parental campaigners, including Deirdre Shakespeare, the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Law Centre and special school principals, that an impasse seems to have emerged between the Department and stakeholders in the process of co-designing the guidance and bringing it forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />Tracking back to the previous mandate, when the issue first gained attention, there were calls from parent campaigners, the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Law Centre and other stakeholders that led ultimately to a departmental report in March 2022, which made a range of recommendations on the use of restrictive practices in educational settings. Those included the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which permits the use of force in educational settings in order to prevent behaviour that is prejudicial to good order and discipline, and the delivery of statutory guidance on restrictive practices in schools, which, among other things, would require the reporting and recording of all instances of restrictive practice.”
“There may be times when it is necessary to keep a child, other children or staff members safe in order to prevent harm or injury. Sadly, however, in the previous mandate and in this mandate, the Committee has heard of instances in which restrictive practices were used inappropriately in order to manage behaviour that was perceived as being problematic. There is unanimous agreement from all parties on the Committee that appropriate statutory guidance is essential to ensure that inappropriate practice is eliminated and that teachers and support staff in our schools are properly protected and supported when a restrictive practice is required in order to ensure that pupils and staff are protected from serious harm.”
“In the first instance, I will speak to the motion in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee, but I will then make some remarks as the Alliance education spokesperson. <BR /> <BR />The issue of restrictive practice has been a focus for the Education Committee going back to the previous mandate. We are all aware of the powerful campaign that was led by Deirdre Shakespeare, which, following the distressing experiences of her son Harry, highlighted the urgent need to bring forward statutory guidance on restrictive practices in schools. <BR /> <BR />I should be clear about what we are referring to when we use the phrase "restrictive practice". It is a fairly neutral phrase, but it refers to any scenario in which a child or young person is physically restrained or potentially secluded from their peers in a school environment.”
“Kircubbin harbour is an example of a non-dwelling that is falling apart. Despite the HED contacting the owner, it appears that no action has been taken. At what stage of dilapidation will the HED step in and take legal action to protect that historic landmark?”
“However, where is the support for the pupils who are looking for a voluntary-sector placement, who need to follow a Health pathway, or for whom apprenticeships or voluntary work is more appropriate? How will their experiences be improved? There are still hundreds of children and young people with SEN for whom yesterday's announcement will not have changed anything for their future. They must not be forgotten. <BR /> <BR />Today, I call again on all those Departments to please get around the table and demonstrate true, collaborative working to deliver a comprehensive, legislative solution that will protect and provide for our young people, regardless of the pathway that they follow when they leave school.”
“However, legislatively, we need to have ambition for Ministers to come together and bring forward solutions that deal with the cross-cutting aspect of the issues and work for everybody. It is undoubtedly a cross-cutting issue. Those Departments will have to work together if we are to deliver change meaningfully. Each of the Departments has a role to play in supporting our children and young people with SEN. Therefore, they must form part of the solution. Ministers tell us often that they do collaborate and that they do work together, but, sometimes, it is hard to see the evidence of it, and it feels as if the silo-based mentality is embedded in our system. <BR /> <BR />I have already acknowledged the Economy Minister's plans. I sincerely hope that they support those young people who are moving out of school and into further education.”
“The Minister said that she will also raise the issue of Health-based pathways with the Health Minister and will work with other Executive colleagues. However, from my perspective, that should have been the focus right back when we began to look at the issue when these institutions were restored. <BR /> <BR />It is a cross-cutting issue. It not only impacts on the Department for the Economy but it impacts on the Education and Health Departments, and it has connections with Communities. It is vital that, on this sort of issue, our Ministers show leadership, come together and bring forward real solutions, not just for service delivery, which is vital. It was welcome in the announcement yesterday that those pathways will be scoped out, improved and enhanced wherever they can be.”
“Yesterday, the Minister for the Economy announced her plans to improve our current, post-19 offering for special educational needs (SEN) learners. It is an issue that we have discussed many times in the Chamber. Again, as many did yesterday, I pay tribute to Alma and other campaigners from Caleb's Cause and all other campaigners in that area, who have worked so hard to highlight the need for intervention and reform. <BR /> <BR />Whilst any progress and improvement is welcome, for many, yesterday's announcement did not go far enough. There is much to welcome: the new assessment and support model in further education will undoubtedly provide legal protections for young SEN learners moving through that pathway.”
“When we look at special educational needs provision in the school system, we see that there has been a systemic failure in Health and Education to collaboratively work together and deliver real change. You have highlighted the need for your Department to work together now with Education and Health to deliver not only what you propose today but the legislation that the campaigners, such as Alma and Caleb's Cause, have been seeking, providing a legislative protection regardless of the pathway that the young people follow. Minister, how will you lead the way to ensure that the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 is properly applied and that we actually see meaningful collaboration in the space where we have failed to do so for many years?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Have targets associated with the plan been tracked since its publication to ensure that there is confidence in its delivery?”
“Will the Minister outline the discussions that he has had with the Infrastructure Minister on the need for a new funding model for NI Water?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. We are in a marginally better position than last year, but 300 pupils without a placement is 300 too many. Can the Minister confirm what support will be provided to those pupils and their families, who may face a scenario in which no placement is available for them in September? How will the Minister assure the Assembly that we will not face the same scenario in the academic year ahead?”
“I declare an interest as a governor of a controlled primary school. Will the Minister confirm whether he will, in this mandate, start progress towards the establishment of a single management authority for all schools in the system in Northern Ireland, as recommended by the independent review of education?”
“Will the Minister outline any representations that he has made to the UK Government in relation to their proposed punitive welfare reforms and policies? Has there been any ongoing engagement on that issue?”
“Many Members have highlighted the fact that the introduction — we hope — of multi-year Budgets could play a key part in enabling some of that transformative planning to be brought forward, but that planning and those multi-year Budgets need to be informed by a genuinely transformative agenda. We cannot just do more of the same but with multi-year Budgets. We need an ambition for something better. If we want to move beyond the cycle of cuts and last-minute rescue plans in monitoring rounds in Education, it is time to start serious conversations about the long-term structural reform of our system.”
“In the budgetary position in which we find ourselves, I do not see how the case can be made for another arm's-length body. We need to move towards a single managing authority and the efficiencies that were promised in the establishment of the EA but have yet to be delivered. Leadership and ambition are needed if we are to see change in education. Change is undoubtedly required. <BR /> <BR />The Budget creates massive challenges for our schools. It creates huge challenges and pressures on the effective delivery of a SEN delivery and transformation plan and of investment in education more broadly.”
“We desperately need an effective 14-19 strategy and an ambition to reform the outdated practice of academic selection in order to deliver a sustainable and fit-for-purpose education system that works collaboratively, not competitively. The fact that conversations are difficult, as those undoubtedly are, does not mean that we should not have them. I hope that the Minister will show leadership in that regard in what is left of the mandate and in the incoming financial year. <BR /> <BR />Finally, we need to reduce bureaucracy, not add to it. As far as I can tell, the most significant intervention that the Minister has outlined in progressing the report of the independent review of education is setting up a managing authority for controlled schools.”
“That creates additional costs in maintaining and delivering the system and in delivering an effective school transport system. Clear steps are needed to establish an independent area planning commission on the long-term direction of travel in order to rightsize our school estate so that we can effectively deliver prudent spending on education that meets the needs of our children and young people effectively rather than unquestioningly accepting that the school estate that we have is the one that we must work with. If we do not start to have those conversations, we will not make the progress that we need to see. <BR /> <BR />There is too much duplication in the system. Our schools compete with our further education colleges and with one another, chasing pupil funding across school sectors and types.”
“We cannot continue to maintain a cumbersome, bureaucratic, divided and complex education system and not expect those pressures to be exacerbated every year. I am concerned that the budget is often directed at just keeping the system running without questioning whether that system delivers effective services for our children and young people. <BR /> <BR />We are a year and a half on from the report of the independent review of education, but I have yet to see any real appetite for some of the structural reform that is needed. I will highlight the three key areas of work that, as far as I can see, the Minister and Department need to take seriously. First, we need to take a strategic look at our school estate. We have too many schools, and the schools that we have are often in the wrong places.”