We have heard a lot today from all sides of the House. I know there are Government representatives who respect the role of SNAs and have engaged with them. We have heard a lot about the various things they do. So much of this hinges on the idea of primary care, the limitations there have been and how that has constrained the approach the Department has taken. We know the many ways in which they are crucial in assisting people with movement breaks, with education and with all of those healthcare needs. In so many respects, they keep the classroom together and keep the lid on so many behavioural issues. For a child who has ADHD and is under pressure, the assistance they get from an SNA ensures they are able to engage fully with their education. In all those contributions, I do not think anyone on any side of this House would say that we should go backwards or that we should constrain the SNA to the role they used to have at the outset of the proposal of the position. We all recognise that the role of the SNA has evolved a great deal in the past 20 or 30 years to what it is in this day and age. How absurd it is that the review was based on such tight criteria when we all know the role is far greater than that. That absurd approach led to a situation where schools such as that in Glasheen in my constituency were looking at four people potentially. As far as they were concerned, in terms of the way it was communicated, they would be out of a job and those children would not get the support they needed. The Minister is shaking her head but that is how it was communicated. That is how it was understood. That is true right across the State. Where do we need to go from here? A pause is not enough. I hope the Minister understands that from this debate. We need to fundamentally begin from the proposition of what the modern SNA does, how crucial their role is and from there decide the appropriate allocation.

Sentiment score: 0.16