Vol. 432 No. 1
10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Education if she proposes to make available the necessary additional resources to meet the State's Constitutional obligations under Article 42.4 of the Constitution as clarified by the recent High Court judgement where the State was found not to be providing an adequate free primary education for a mentally handicapped child in County Cork; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
29 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Education her views on the findings of Justice O'Hanlon in the High Court on Thursday, 27 May 1993, that in failing to provide free primary education for a severely handicapped child both she and the Minister for Health, were discriminating against that child and depriving him of his constitutional rights; the way in which she intends to prevent a recurrence of this type of discrimination in the future; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
252 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, she has to improve free primary education facilities for severely or profoundly physically or mentally handicapped children, in view of the judgment given in the High Court on 27 May 1993, by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon in which he said that a new approach was required and that the teaching process should, as far as practicable, be continuous throughout the year.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 29 and 252 together.
The High Court judgment to which the Deputies refer is exceptionally lengthy, being 85 pages long and complex and raises a wide range of very important issues. The implications of the court's findings are currently being studied and it would be premature at this stage to speculate as to the actions which may prove necessary as a result of this judgment.
The Deputies will be interested to know that the judgement is being studied, not just by my Department, but also in the Attorney General's Office, the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the Department of Health.
Despite her reservations, will the Minister accept that the landmark judgment handed down by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon two weeks ago has major and far-reaching consequences and that in awarding a mentally handicapped child, who has not been provided with an adequate level of free primary level education, the sum of £7,645 he has opened the door for 1,700 other mentally handicapped adults and children in care who are not receiving education?
I ask the Deputy to bear with me. Given the length and extreme importance of the judgment I would prefer to wait until a proper analysis is completed before I comment on any aspect of it. The Department and I take the judgment seriously and I again ask the Deputy to bear with us and allow us to study the judgment, which runs to 85 pages.
If Question No. 11——
May I ask a brief question?
——is to be dealt with it must be replied to now.
May I ask one very brief supplementary?
I said "now", I am sorry, Deputy.
The Minister has mastered the art of tautology.
I have called Question No. 11 and I wish to have a response.
You did not call the Minister to order when she prattled on in reply to questions.
The Deputy will please resume his seat. I am appealing to his sense of fair play in the matter.
I appeal to the Ceann Comhairle to adjudicate and to give a balanced reply. The Minister has come into the House——
The Deputy may not reflect upon the Chair and he is wasting precious time.
The Minister has come into the House——
The Deputy should resume his seat forthwith.
——and repeated in a chronological fashion the same answer.
The Deputy will resume his seat forthwith or leave the House. I am surprised at the Deputy.
I wish you had said that to the Taoiseach earlier.
The Deputy should keep out of it.
I will not; there is a need for balance.
The Deputy has no right to intervene in this debate.
There is a need for balance.
The Deputy should behave himself. Let us have a response to Question No. 11.
We are not schoolboys.
