Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs: Capital Investment

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 16 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

Special Educational Needs: Capital Investment

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5110935

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his welcome and endorsement of the approach that I have outlined. It is commendable that we have people who are prepared to step up and give support when they know that it is the right thing to do. Thank you for that. It is not just about investing to save; it is about investing in our special children. That is critical and is what drives the approach that I have taken. I have been in countless special schools, as have Members, some of whom have been with me. Every time I go into a special school, I walk out of it asking myself what more I can do to support it. More than any other part of our education system, we need to support that sector. As Members often say in the House, we are measured by how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. We will measure the decisions that are taken by Executive parties by their decision on this Executive paper. It is about investing to save — I agree — given our current spend, which was about £110 million in the past two years. I mentioned that, in 2019, we spent about £9 million on emergency approaches. Next year, we will have to spend in the region of £85 million on emergency responses. We all know that, when you have to respond in that emergency environment, there will be questions about value for money and why we have had to respond in that way. We need properly planned construction work to ensure that we spend the money effectively. Ultimately, however, it is about investing in our special children.

We can look at the past, which people have legitimate questions about, but we need to deliver for the future. When I came into office, we reorganised our capital expenditure and provided clear visibility on the SEN capital programme — we separated that within our departmental structures — and we took a SEN-first approach. I am now asking Executive parties to take a SEN-first approach to all capital spend in Northern Ireland. I commissioned the Education Authority to carry out the detailed master plan work, which it has now completed. That work was undertaken with my officials and, importantly, school principals. They have very much been part of the process. What we have today is a culmination of that engagement with our special school leadership. If implemented, the plan will allow us to put in place measures to meet the long-term strategic need. If we do not do that, as I have made clear and will do again, schools will close. Children will be unplaced if we do not move forward with the approach that I have outlined. Members will rightly challenge me on what I am doing to plan for and meet children's needs. I have been getting on with coming up with a plan. We have published that plan, and I seek the support of the Executive to take it forward. It is the only viable way of addressing the issue; otherwise, we will be trapped in a cycle of emergency responses, which means failing our children.

I will come to back to the Member on the specific detail, but she is right that Knockevin is one of the schools that we have been moving forward, and work on that continues. The Member rightly highlights a cause for concern that I have mentioned before: the withdrawal of a nurse and of allied health professionals. That is why I said that this is not just a departmental responsibility but a cross-departmental responsibility. As we move forward with my plan, as I hope and trust that we will, other Departments need to align with it.

For children and young people in special schools. that is where they are best placed to receive all the other medical support that they need. That is where we need the work of the Department of Health in order to assist me and those principals. Their job, fundamentally, is to be educators, but they can only do that, in an environment where there are increasing medical complexities, with the right support from our medical practitioners. That is why I welcome the review that was commissioned by the Chief Nursing Officer. A report is there and is being looked at. We need to see the outworkings of that review, and then we need to see the support being aligned to what I am trying to do and what the special school principals have been calling for.

I thank the Member for that question. He highlights the repurposing of mainstream school spaces for specialist provision. Let me first express my deep gratitude to schools that have very much stepped up and accommodated specialist provision at the expense of existing support and the limited classroom space that they have. I am deeply appreciative of those schools, principals and boards of governors who have gone above and beyond in order to help us address the challenges that we face. I can confirm that works to restore any required space utilised in the establishment of specialist provision are on the minor works programme for delivery. Despite the work that has been carried out over the past two years, demand for SEN places continues to outstrip availability. All resources remain focused on the delivery of additional accommodation in order to meet the demand for 2026 and 2027, and works to restore lost accommodation will follow.

I am asking my Executive colleagues to deliver the Programme for Government commitment. That is the document that the Member's party agreed to, as did my party. One of the nine priorities in the Programme for Government, which I referenced in my speech, is around special educational needs. The logic, therefore, is that Executive expenditure will align with the Programme for Government. In my engagement with the Minister of Finance, I outlined a 10-year plan. The year 1 call to deliver on the plan amounts to £93 million. It builds, and, by the midway point, it will rise to almost £400 million in one year alone. This is a 10-year plan: the Minister of Finance is engaged in a three-year programme of identifying where the priorities should be, and the Executive will engage in that. I expect, and we will articulate, that the Programme for Government will be honoured in respect of the approach to the comprehensive spending review process and that the funding will align to the PFG. Therefore, that will follow what the Member and others have called for, which is a SEN-first approach. That has to be reflected not just in my Department, which it is, but by the Executive as a whole. I trust that I can count on the Member's support for putting children with special educational needs first.

The Member is right: it is about more than just buildings. Again, however, I emphasise the point that we need buildings. I cannot emphasise enough that schools will close otherwise. If we do not step up to the plate, schools will close. Right across the school estate, we are funding emergency responses to keep schools open and safe. If we do not provide funding for special educational needs through the ring-fenced Executive flagship project that I have outlined, we will not be able to keep schools open and safe, and they will therefore close. I agree with the Member that we need collaborative working. We need the Department of Health to work with us. We need the Department for Infrastructure to work with us on road safety to help us improve roads outside our schools. Many aspects of cross-departmental work are required for our education system, but this is an absolute priority, and I am ringing the alarm bells as loudly as I can to say to Members and to all political parties that this is the only viable path. I have been challenged, and rightly so. I have been asked where the plan is. I have developed a plan. It is not just aspirational or a strategy. Rather, it is a detailed, worked-out master plan for every single special school and for everywhere that we need specialist provision. We are now at the moment of decision for all Executive parties on whether they step up and endorse that approach. It is the only way forward.

I thank the Member for the question and commend him for his work in Foyle. I have been to Ardnashee. I know what is taking place there and commend the school for the excellent work that it is doing. He asks an important question, and it is one that has generated some discussion on the powers that exist for direction. The EA was asking the Department to consider directing schools back in June. If, at the point of exhausting all possible options, there had been a viable option for doing so in the view of the EA, it was seeking a view on whether we would go down the route of direction. Ultimately, we did not need to do that. We avoided having to go down that particular route. For Members' benefit, I will say that it is a power that has been utilised in a neighbouring jurisdiction, so it is not unique. Such a power has been enacted elsewhere. Our schools rose to the challenge last year, and they have risen to the challenge this year. Going forward, I want to take the approach that schools engage with the Education Authority, which is why I welcome the intervention by the NAHT: that trade union in particular. It wants to have that engagement, so that, across all localities, we can have adequate and excellent provision for all our children as close to their home as possible. Of course, I want schools to believe that, whenever support is offered by the Education Authority to set up specialist provision, they can have confidence that that support will be there. It would be wrong of me to deny that that is a genuine concern for principals, because they lack confidence that they will get the right support. I have, however, been reassured by some principals, who have said to me that they are pleased with the support provided. They are pleased with how specialist provision has been implemented and the positive impact that it has had on the whole school community, so there are good examples of that. I believe that principals will continue to step forward, because it is in their very DNA to want to help, so, as we build confidence, we need to make sure that the Executive provide that support. We need to provide the buildings that will be required to meet that need. I have outlined very clearly the path that we need to follow and the plan that we need to implement to do that.

The Member highlighted Sperrinview. That is one of the schools that we are seeking to take forward. There have been some challenges there in recent weeks, but some progress has been made on identifying a suitable site for that school, which we now need to test to ensure that it is the most appropriate place. The exercise that I commissioned from the EA last year was to look at all the special schools, identify the areas of need across Northern Ireland and see where we need new schools to be created. That work has been completed. The plan is now available for Members so that they can ensure that we are meeting pupils' needs. I want — of course, we all want — children to be able to get the educational support that they require in their local community. We have some children who travel long distances to be given the educational support that they need. I do not find that position acceptable, nor do I believe that any Member finds it acceptable. That is why we need to endorse the plan and allow my Department to get on with the work of putting it into action.

I thank the Member for her question and for the work that she does in East Antrim. The statement is very much about the capital needs of the school estate. It is about a 10-year plan to make sure that we expand the physical capacity of special schools. It is about establishing new schools and looking at making greater use of campuses by bringing together existing special schools on a campus-type model. All that has been worked through and given a master plan. The benefit of having an effective school estate is that we will then be able to enhance the educational output from those schools. If we fail to do that and to provide the right environment in which our young people can learn and be supported, at the point at which they leave school, they will not be equipped with the skills that they require to continue in life. We have a limited window of opportunity to make a meaningful impact on those young people's lives when they are in school settings. That is why we have to implement the plan. Of course, the Department continues to work with other Departments on pathways for young people to transition to life beyond special school settings. The Department for the Economy and its Minister have brought work to the Executive on how they will be able to provide greater support in those pathway provisions.

What an example of a useless Opposition.

What an example of a useless Opposition.

We come to the Chamber to speak on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society and to talk about children who have complex medical needs and who need to have our support and a clear plan for how we can come up with that support, and the leader of the Opposition, the alternative to the Executive, fires a cheap shot around the use of artificial intelligence.

I have to say that those who are listening to the contribution —

— of the leader of the Opposition will come to their own conclusion —

— about the utter lack of capacity —

— that he has just outlined. I am not going to allow the Member to detract from children with special educational needs —

— and it is utterly shameful that the SDLP's leader has used this opportunity —.

I think of the principals and the parents who have listened in to the last 60 seconds of unedifying contribution from Matthew O'Toole as leader of the Opposition. He will not apologise to me. I do not expect him to.

He should apologise to the special schools and to the families for his shameful contribution.

I have outlined the plan to make sure that we can meet the needs of those children and young people.

Yes, the leader of the Opposition, having made his cheap shot, leaves the Chamber. It really shows the absolute insincerity of that last contribution from the leader of the SDLP. I say to Mr McNulty that this is the plan to ensure that we do not fail our children. This is the plan to make sure that we actually can provide for them so that they can succeed in life. I ask for the support for this plan, because we will be able to deliver for them. That is the obligation on our society. I appeal to Members that this should cross party lines. This should cross all departmental responsibilities. I appeal to the Opposition to join us in the endeavours that we are seeking in order to meet the needs of our children and young people.

I thought that the Member would have welcomed transparency and openness. He seems to be suggesting that he did not want to have transparency and openness and that these discussions would happen behind closed doors. That is an interesting departure from the TUV's position on transparency. I have brought a statement to the House for Assembly Members to be able to hold me to account. I assumed that Members of the legislative Assembly wanted that opportunity, but Mr Gaston outlines a different approach. On the key issue, Mr Gaston brought me to some schools in his constituency —

He brought me to some schools in his constituency —

He brought me to some schools in his constituency —

I do.

Having brought me to a number of schools, the Member, rightly, challenged me about what I am doing to support those schools. What I have done is develop this plan. I encourage the Member to look at the master plan for the schools in his constituency. He will see the detailed work that has now been completed. He will see the pathway to deliver for those children and young people who he, rightly, asked me to visit, and he has my support for what he is trying to do in his constituency. We need to rise above the idea of challenge just because it is the party political thing to do. We need to, on occasion, rise above that. I get that there will be a degree of knockabout. This should not be a knockabout issue in the Assembly Chamber. The plan will deliver purpose-built, brand new schools — not modular but new schools — the enhancement of existing schools and physical construction. Of course, there will continue to be specialist provision that we need to meet. Next year, we will need to put in place modular buildings. I say to Members, however, that new modular buildings are very different from the mobile classrooms in the school that I went to. There are still some schools where the mobile classrooms are appalling, but brand new modular buildings are very good and of a high standard. Yes, there will be a mix of physical, bricks-and-mortar new builds and extension works, and modular units will also be provided to meet the need. However, this is the plan to achieve the objectives that I believe, at heart, everyone wants us to achieve. Let us get behind it and support those who need it most.

I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined to Mr Sheehan, I have already met the Finance Minister. We went through the financial pressures in the Department, and I highlighted my plan for special schools. This is not a shock. It is not that I have come to the Assembly without already going to my Executive colleagues. I have gone to my Executive colleagues. Every Minister in the Executive has received the paper, which is there. I hope that the paper will be placed on the agenda and that we can agree and approve the plan. The paper is there, but it is right for me, as the Minister of Education, to assure the public, principals and pupils that I am in their corner. I am fighting for them. I will be their champion, as I promised, when it comes to getting the financial support that the Department of Education needs. The funding cannot be met — I have repeated that ad nauseam — from within the normal conventional spend of the Department of Education. This initiative has to be a dedicated, ring-fenced, Executive, flagship, priority project, and that will then align with the demand for a SEN-first approach, not just in my Department but in the Executive.

3,227 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:12 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.

Challenge this classification