Vol. 467 No. 1
13 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, she has to withdraw the appeal to the Supreme Court on the decision of the High Court in the O'Donoghue case regarding the rights of special needs children to an education; and, if not, when the case will be heard in the Supreme Court; and, if she will make a statement on the matter. [12824/96]
48 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Education if she will consider the withdrawal of the Supreme Court appeal in the O'Donoghue case in order to move towards a policy of providing for all persons with special education needs. [12487/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 48 together.
I have no plans to recommend to Government the withdrawal of the Supreme Court appeal in the case in question. I understand the appeal will not be heard by the Supreme Court before the autumn.
The judgment raises issues of constitutional relevance, primarily to do with the separation of the powers and duties of the Executive and judicial arms of Government and the appropriate relationship between the two. These are constitutional matters of the utmost importance, having a relevance across the entire spectrum of State activities. The Government has been advised by counsel and the Attorney General that the Supreme Court, which has the ultimate role in interpreting the Constitution, should, in the public interest, be asked to consider these aspects of the judgment. It is on this basis that an appeal has been lodged.
The appeal, however, when it is resolved, will not in any way diminish the services made available, after this judgment, to the child involved or to other children with special education needs. The appeal is being pursued entirely without prejudice to the present level of education services in the special needs area. It is also entirely without prejudice to the proposals set out in the White Paper on the future development of such services.
The perception on the ground is very different from that presented by the Minister. The perception is that the appeal to the Supreme Court is to frustrate the positive implications of the High Court judgment for children with special needs. Why has the Minister not taken steps to implement the positive aspects of its decision, the central element of which is that a profoundly handicapped child is incapable of being educated to the fullest degree possible? Why have we not seen consequential improvements in terms of resources and the allocation of teachers to special schools and so forth?
I am disappointed the Deputy has no idea of the major improvements which have been made since I became Minister. Prior to the High Court judgment in the O'Donoghue case children with profound and severe mental handicap enjoyed a pupil-teacher ratio of 12:1. Child care support was provided at a similar ratio. Significant improvements have been made since then. The pupil-teacher and child care assistant ratio is now 6:1. The number of classes has increased from 19 to 55. The special capitation rate in respect of these children has increased from £92.70 in 1993 to £341 in the current year and will be increased to £383 in the 1996-97 school year. For Paul O'Donoghue and the other children attending the COPE Foundation in Cork an extended education service is provided throughout the month of July.
I have sought to have the report of the special education review committee published. I can list the improvements which benefit not only children with profound and severe mental handicap but other children suffering disadvantage. The question is timely because it allows me an opportunity of informing the Deputy of these improvements. If he were to visit the many schools which provide services to children in this category, he would be left in no doubt——
I have. Perhaps the Minister should visit the schools which provide services in Cork.
Last week I visited St. Francis special school in Portlaoise. If the Deputy checks with the schools in question, he will find that there has been a very generous response to their needs. The appeal is being taken because a constitutional interpretation is required in providing services.
With my Oireachtas colleagues from all parties I attended a meeting in Cork a number of months ago at which the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, was represented. It is a pity the Minister was not there in one respect because she would have witnessed the incredible anger and frustration of the parents of children with special needs. Their anger was most palpable. They were extremely angry at the lack of progress and the fact that the decision was being appealed to the Supreme Court. They were not positive in any way about what the Minister and the Department have been doing in terms of providing increased resources for special schools and children with special needs generally.
There was a large attendance at the meeting. It was a very angry meeting and public representatives from all parties witnessed that anger. They could not have come away from it with any sense that major progress had been made. Would the Minister be prepared to meet the Cork groups concerned? It is my understanding that Government Deputies were to arrange such a meeting but to my knowledge none has taken place. If she is casting scorn on the content of my questions, perhaps it is time the Minister met the people concerned and heard at first hand their concerns and anxieties.
The question is timely. The Deputy has suggested that nothing has happened and that the area of special education has been ignored. It is important that he should inform himself of the generous improvements which have been made since the report of the special education review committee was published following the lodgment of the appeal in the O'Donoghue case.
I am well informed. Will the Minister meet the groups involved?
The Minister of State has met them. The appeal is being pursued for constitutional reasons and without prejudice to the ongoing improvements for children with special needs. The purpose is to ensure certainty. The implementation of the recommendations of the report of the special education review committee is ongoing. The capitation grant is to be increased to £383 from next September. It was £92 when I became Minister. The pupil-teacher ratio has been reduced from 12:1 to 6:1. In the case of the COPE foundation there is an extended education service throughout the month of July. I will ensure that resources are available.
The report will inform my decisions. There has been a generous response by the Department. All of the recommendations have not yet been implemented. While we await the outcome of the appeal I would prefer to say no more about the specifics but rather to make available to the Deputy and his colleagues the details of the investment which is ongoing.
What constitutional matter is the Minister seeking to have clarified? Will she accept that there is a perception problem about the appeal which was raised again at the parents meeting in Dublin in terms of the provision of services for the mentally handicapped? Will she further accept that, while she has done a great deal herself, as a society we are only beginning to realise the scale of special education needs from the minor learning difficulty to the needs of the more severely handicapped? Would she consider giving a commitment in the White Paper to meet the varied needs of all pupils in the system?
I have been advised that the appeal will be heard in the autumn. It is based on technical concerns. I am sorry to hear that the parents of children with specific needs are concerned that the improved investment in schools which is very evident is under threat. Not only will there be improvements now but more improvements will come on stream. It would help everyone if a full itinerary of the improvements was made available. This will not prejudice the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. It is being pursued because there are concerns about the separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive and the right of the Government to decide how resources are allocated. I have been advised to say no more about the court case except to assure Deputies and parents that they should not be concerned. My record in the Department of Education is good in regard to the provision of services for children with special needs. I have already committed myself not only to ensuring there are improvements but to the continuing implementation of the recommendations of the special education review committee.
I am anxious to progress with other Deputies questions.
The Minister said she is sorry to hear that parents have this perception and are not happy. Will she be prepared to meet parents groups and will she respond to a request from the National Association of Mentally and Profoundly Handicapped Children in Cork to discuss with them the fear they have articulated to Deputies in the House? The Minister seems to have a difficulty in accepting my word in terms of what I have conveyed today and indeed the word of other Deputies, such as Deputy Flaherty. I am simply asking if the Minister will meet these groups? There is a perception abroad that she will not meet anybody.
I am amused when the Deputy tries every now and then to arrange my diary.
I did not attempt to arrange it.
I have already said this is subject to appeal in the autumn. My comments about the court case have to be guarded. To facilitate us in spreading the good news I have already committed myself to preparing a full itinerary of the improvements in place. Following the court appeal we can review the position.
I am not talking about the court case.
I have to be very conscious of the court case and I ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to bear with me.
Will the Minister be prepared——
The case which is pending almost since I arrived in Marlborough Street will go to the Supreme Court in the autumn. In the meantime there have been many improvements and they will continue. That is the concern of the parents involved.
On the provision of services generally to children with special needs, will the Minister be prepared to meet the groups concerned to discuss those issues?
Question No. 14 please.
May I have an answer from the Minister? Will she be prepared to meet those groups? We are talking about people who have a legitimate concern——
The Chair has no control over Minister's answers.
——and the Minister will not say whether she will meet them.
Will the Minister accept the fact that her refusal to meet this group and other groups——
I have not refused to meet them.
——will reinforce the belief among parents that the system is letting them down? That she will not reply in the Dáil and will not accept the need to meet the parents representatives shows a disregard for the real feelings of these people.
The Minister will not accept our word.
This appeal has been pending since I arrived in the Department of Education. I may be judged by my actions. I have given a long list of the investments I have put in place and met different groups. We must allow this appeal to be heard. In the meantime the improvements in the services being sought by parents are receiving a positive response from the Department of Education. I have asked that the Deputy would not try to organise my diary——
I have no intention of organising it.
——but allow me to give recognition to the fact that the court case is pending.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch and the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, gave an undertaking that——
I met them.
