I say at the outset that the State fully complied with the High Court judgment in the O'Donoghue case and did so without any delay following delivery of the judgment. The Deputy's question may relate to cases involving similar issues as arose in the O'Donoghue case. Since the High Court judgment in that case, a total of 117 legal actions have been taken against the State on behalf of children with special needs in which the judgment in question has been cited. The cases in question are at various stages. Many have been adjourned generally on the basis that provision has now been put in place.
The Deputy will appreciate that I am constrained in commenting specifically on the second case to which he refers as this matter is currently under appeal. The High Court judgment in this case raises issues which are of such fundamental importance to the education system, and to the system of State administration and expenditure, that they require clarification by the Supreme Court. The Government considers that it has an obligation, in the public interest, to clarify these matters and establish precisely what is the range of the State's duty in this area. The appeal will focus on legal and constitutional issues. It will not affect damages which have already been paid to Mrs. Sinnott in respect of past education of her son or expenses for his education pending the judgment of the Supreme Court.
To date, the cases taken against the State on foot of the O'Donoghue judgment have involved the State in expenditure of £1million in meeting claimants' legal fees and £1.68 million in agreed damages and settlements. The O'Donoghue case related to the provision of education services for children with severe or profound general learning disability. The estimated cost of provision for these children is £7 million per annum compared to a cost of approximately £5 million per annum for children with autism. All such children are entitled to avail of the special school transport service and to be accompanied by an escort on this service. Additional provision is being put in place in both of these areas on an ongoing basis as further needs are identified.
I assure the House that I find it unacceptable that any parent, particularly a parent of a child with special needs, should find it necessary to resort to litigation to secure their child's educational entitlements.
Additional InformationWhile this Government has presided over an unprecedented level of improvement in special education services, I am fully aware that much work remains to be done. A key development in this regard is the recent report of the planning group established in my Department to make recommendations on the arrangements which should be put in place to ensure the most effective provision of a high quality co-ordinated service at all stages of education for students with disabilities.
The recommendations brought forward by the planning group provide a valuable blueprint for the development of an efficient and effective special education service which will remove the need for parents to have to resort to litigation to secure their entitlements. The recommendations have been endorsed by the Cromien review of the Department's operations, systems and staffing needs. It is my intention to seek Government approval to implement recommendations of the Cromien report and the special education planning group with a view to improving the delivery of services to parents and children including those with special needs.
