Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs and Disability: Investment and Transformation
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 26 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Special Educational Needs and Disability: Investment and Transformation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4231274
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is a critical and important issue, but nothing we have heard today is new. The reality is that, behind all the examples and numbers that have been given, there are families and children who are suffering in terrible situations. They are all unique. There is a wider problem that we need to look at. We have multiple reports. There are 200 recommendations that outline how we could move to resolve the problem. The previous Education Committee spent months looking at the issue. The previous Public Accounts Committee spent months looking at the issue. The NIAO spent months looking at the issue. We know what the problems are. The reality is that parents watching today will ask — I am sorry about the tone — "Is this just more lip service?". They want action. We know what the problems are. I am sorry to say it but, if there was ever an example of how not to do something in that area, this place would top the charts, because it has been disastrous. We have all heard it. My door is knocked as much as everyone else's, my phones ring and my inbox is filled with emails: all of that comes from parents who are absolutely desperate for help. They are desperate to the extent that their mental health has deteriorated significantly and they have had to leave their jobs. There are families with no wider family network or support who are in crisis. When those families and children needed us, this place was silent — not once but twice, for five years in total. We knew five years ago what we know today, because all the reports point to the exact same things. What we need is action. I will not stand in the way of the Minister if he moves to implement the various recommendations that have been laid out, but we need to move now. Motions are grand — they draw attention to and shine a light on the issue — but people want action. We cannot delay it and delay it and delay it. I read the briefing paper that came through today from the Children's Law Centre, which points to things that we have discussed today. It says that the problems parents and children are experiencing have been:
"caused by unlawful operation of that framework and process failings ... driven in part by chronic under-resourcing and poverty of service provision, relative to growing need."
That is a shocking statement. The briefing paper goes on to claim:
"The SEND system has been allowed to degenerate into critical failure, with even basic legal entitlements, such as a school place, being unavailable to children most in need".
The body that I have most questions for is the Education Authority. There has been a mountain of disastrous mismanagement by the Education Authority in this area, and our children have been failed. When I raised complaints and concerns and reported it continually to the permanent secretary and the departmental officials — in the absence of this place, when we could not hold a Minister to account — nothing was done. The Children's Law Centre is highly critical of the role of the Education Authority, stating:
"there is a complete lack of clarity about what transformation processes are taking place 'on the ground' within EA pupil support services."
That is a disaster. I am not going to stand today and say, "Let us all be cosy and work together". We need to implement the recommendations that are there. The House has talked about the importance of early intervention, and, yes, that is it in a nutshell.
However, for God's sake, let us ensure, first and foremost, that we listen to the parents who are affected, the teachers at the coalface, the classroom assistants and all of those who are struggling.
Absolutely. That is a key point. The importance of Departments working together is also pointed to in the Children's Law Centre documents today. That does not happen. I sincerely hope that, with the Ministers in place in the new Executive, that will happen. I hope that, for the sake of those children and all of the other people who are struggling in our society, the House never falls again. For the sake of those children and the future of our society, which those kids are, we need Ministers to work together to put them first. Enough of the suffering and struggling: let us take action now. Let those families and young people know that we have heard them, that we are responding to them, that we will take action, and that, most importantly, no child will be left behind again.
779 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.