Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 May 1985

Vol. 108 No. 6

Adjournment Matter. - Mayo Handicapped Children.

Mr. J. Higgins

The first thing I want to do is to thank you very sincerely for deeming this material as suitable to be raised on the Adjournment. I want to say quite categorically that the only reason I have chosen to do so on the Adjournment is from sheer frustration and my inability to achieve positive movement as regards the subject matter of what we are about to discuss.

On 13 October 1984 the parents of a young child from County Mayo approached me with their problem. The child was then seven years of age and has cerebral palsy, thereby making her mildly mentally handicapped. Aware of her condition and as there was no school for handicapped locally, the child was accepted into a local playgroup. She did not fit in and her parents then enrolled her in the local primary school. It simply did not work, she could not cope. She was then re-introduced to the playgroup because at least here she could get some degree and element of individual attention. However, from the point of view of the running of the playgroup and out of consideration for the other children therein it was found to be not practical for her to continue.

It was obvious that what the child needed was specialist schooling in a special school for the handicapped. Dr. Elizabeth Healy of the Western Care Association, and Dr. Pat Laven of the Department of Education, both concurred on this. The child was recommended for enrolment in a special class for mildly mentally handicapped pupils at St. Anne's national school, Castlerea, and transport was duly sanctioned by the Department of Education. It was here that the crux of the problem arose. The transport offered to this child meant that she was the first student to be collected on the route each morning. She would be collected at approximately 7.55 a.m. and would arrive at school in time for school to commence at 10 a.m., a journey of approximately two hours and five minutes. I know that the Department gave the time element as one hour and three-quarters but knowing the route intimately and knowing the parents involved, I have reason to believe that the more reasonable and accurate average is two hours and five minutes. The return journey in the evening took exactly the same length.

We are talking about a journey of four hours and ten minutes each day for a seven year-old mentally handicapped child in a car. The parents refused to submit their child to this four hour return journey each day, and I do not blame them. If it were my child I would do exactly the same myself and if it were the Minister of State's child he would do the same. If it were the child of the civil servants within the Department of Education who devise the rules and regulations, the criteria and guidelines, he or she would do exactly the same. I would not subject any child, let alone a mentally handicapped child, to being cooped up for this period of time each day, 28 hours per week in travel time alone.

My immediate reaction was to get in contact with the Minister of State. I wrote to him and on 30 November I received a reply. The reply which I received from the Minister of State basically stated the position in relation to the transport arrangements. It stated:

In the circumstances, however, my Department is prepared to offer a grant not exceeding £300 per year to assist towards the cost of making private transport arrangements for the child to the educational facilities available. If availed of, the amount of the grant payable would be dependent on the regularity of the child's attendance at school. The principal teacher in the school would complete a record sheet at the end of the school year in respect of the child's school attendance and forward it to my Department for payment of the grant. Therefore, the child must be a regular attender.

Secondly, the child or the child's parents would have to wait until the end of the school year before getting reimbursement for what they had spent. The parents, therefore, had two options, (a) to accept the existing transport facilities offered, thereby imposing a four hour journey on their child each day, or (b) accept a grant which would only be paid at the end of the school year amounting to less than £1 per day and which would only be paid on foot of very stringent stipulated conditions.

I ask objectively what in the name of heavens has happened to a once brandished aspiration of cherishing all our children equally? The father of this child is a small farmer, a very small farmer by west of Ireland standards. He is a farmer who has to go out each day and work with the county council almost 25 miles away. This means it was simply beyond the competence of the parents to provide transport from their own resources. They took up the challenge and they sought quotations. The cheapest quotation they could get was £20 per day for the return journey, which by any standards was a very equitable and reasonable quotation. By now, however, November, December, January, February, March and April had elapsed and the mentally handicapped child received no form of schooling. Only two months remained in the school year and, even allowing for the maximum grant of £300 at this stage, this would only give her transport for three weeks. Of my own volition, I then asked the Western Care Association, a voluntary association dealing with the mentally handicapped in County Mayo which is charged with the management of the services for the mentally handicapped, to back the Department's £300, thereby enabling £600 to be made available in toto or £100 a week for six weeks. At least the child would finish the school year. I received the following letter from the Minister of State:

I also wish to inform you that £300 per annum transport costs is the maximum amount for which I have sanction to pay towards the cost of providing private transport arrangements to the educational facilities available. The sanction for this grant was obtained on the supposition that this would be the only grant payable directly or indirectly from public funds so that the question of paying it in addition to a subsidy from the Western Care Association would hardly arise.

The point here is that the Western Care Association is funded by the Western Health Board but only in relation to services, not in relation to transport. All transport facilities for mentally handicapped children in County Mayo are undertaken by the Department of Education. Furthermore, a sizeable element of the resources used by the Western Care Association come from voluntary funds. There was no question whatever of duplication of resources in this case.

I have here in my possession the receipts which these people have paid to the taxi man in order to ensure that their child gets to school within a reasonable period of time. They paid the taxi driver for the first three weeks from the funds, £300 from the Western Care Association and the Western Care Association duly reimbursed them. For the past two weeks, however, these parents have had to borrow the money to send their child to school, and these are the receipts that I have here. The Department of Education refuse to pay even one penny now towards the cost of providing transport for this child in order to ensure that the continuity and the satisfaction derived by the child in beginning education even at this late stage is maintained. To me it is wrong, it is immoral, it is discriminatory, and I would go so far as to say it is almost unforgiveable that the week after we increased university grants for people who have the capacity and the ability to learn we are not in a position to provide an adequate transport service for a mentally handicapped child in County Mayo.

I did forget that there was another option: the Department said they were prepared to offer residential care. The parents refused, and I would refuse. This child is mildly mentally handicapped and can naturally thrive best in the home enviroment integrated with the more normal children who are members of that family and members of that community. If I were a parent, I also would reject residential care. I am asking the Minister of State even at this eleventh hour to exercise the power vested in him to ensure that adequate money is made available to ensure that the continuity that has been set up is (a) maintained and that (b) above all else a proper standard of service, particularly in relation to the degree of time spent in travel, is put into operation to allow this child to have what is the entitlement of any child, that is, education within reasonable parameters and within reasonable criteria.

I do not like raising this matter. It is in sheer desperation and in sheer embarrassment at my inability to get the message across that I have been forced to do so. Knowing the Minister of State, he has the capacity, the compassion, and the necessary fund and reservoir of humanity to see the logic of my arguments and to ensure that the necessary resources are put at these parents disposal until such time as the year ends. Then during summer the transport service can be looked upon and reviewed and reintroduced on a satisfactory basis next September.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Creed)

I have no objection to Senator Higgins bringing me back on the Adjournment here and raising a matter which is very near and dear to him. It is necessary at this stage to put the problem into perspective and to remind the House of the difficulties involved in special education. Special education can be provided in residential schools or by daily attendance at special schools or classes. Where a child is within transport range of a suitable special school or class, the preferred option is to provide transport daily. There are limits on the amount which can be spent on such transport, and apart from the cost, there are limits in regard to the travel timetable in so far as an undue length of time spent travelling can put a strain on the health and stamina of a child.

In relation to transport to special schools, there are other difficulties in that even where travelling times are reasonable and cost is within limits a particular child may need constant supervision during the journey. It follows that there is no easy way to determine whether a child is within the range of daily transport to a school. Each case has to be considered on its merits. If daily transport is not feasible, then the alternative is residential placement.

Transport to special primary schools is provided, as in the case of the general school transport scheme, through the agency of CIE who either provide transport direct or through sub-contractors. In the case of special school transport sub-contractors are extensively employed. Routes are expected to be organised to ensure that the cost of transport is reasonable. This necessarily means that each route caters for a number of children.

Many handicapped children reside considerable distances from the school and from each other and accordingly routes for special schools are much more expensive in terms of time and money than routes to normal schools. The vehicles used vary in size and the only crew is the driver who is not in a position to supervise passengers while driving. I do not have the funds to pay for escorts for these vehicles even where there is room for an escort. Sometimes it is possible to accommodate escorts provided by a voluntary organisation or from among parents of the pupils concerned. Such arrangements can present difficulties unless the vehicle concerned passes near the home of the escort, both coming and going.

There is also provision, as the Senator said, of a grant up to a maximum of £300 per annum to parents in relation to individual pupils living in locations far removed from school transport routes as a help to the cost of conveying their children to schools.

In the case with which the Senator is concerned, catering for the child in question because she lives a considerable distance from the nearest suitable school to which there is a transport service, has posed special problems. Originally, in June 1984, arrangements were made to have her admitted to St. Annes' school, Castlerea, which has facilities for mildly mentally handicapped children but which is 27 miles away from the home. The Western Care Association which had been giving the child a home teaching service for the previous two years wrote to CIE at about the same time, asking that home to school transport be provided to enable her to attend St. Anne's primary school.

My Department sanctioned an extension to the existing route to Castlerea by over five miles to enable this to be done. The total extra mileage, morning and evening, was 21 miles. A letter to this effect issued to CIE in August 1984. However, before this could be put into operation a detailed letter signed by the parents was received. This letter explained that the child was not suitable for education at the local national school but would need to be in a special class or in a school for the mildly mentally handicapped. Four such schools were mentioned in the letter, St. Anthony's Castlebar, St. Joseph's, Sligo — both about 30 miles-plus away and with no transport available — St. Dympna's, Ballina — 30 miles away — and St. Anne's Castlerea — 27 miles away. The parents were aware that there were transport services available to St. Dympna's and St. Anne's but quoted an officer of the Western Health Board as saying, together with all other experts who had seen the child, that the child would not be able to make the journey to Castlerea. The parents' main objection was to the length of the journey and to the absence of a helper on the bus or car.

Following receipt of this letter, an inspector of the Department of Education discussed the matter with the parents of the child early in August. He was told that residential accommodation would not be acceptable, the possibility of enrolling the child in the local school was considered and turned down as an attempt to teach the child in a local national school had already been made and had failed. The reason behind this latter proposal was that it would be an interim arrangement until such time as the child might be ready to travel to a school for the mildly mentally handicapped.

In summary, it was reported by the inspector that placement at the local school was unacceptable even in the short term, that the journey to Castlerea or Ballina by the existing routes would be unacceptable either now or at any time and that residential placement was not acceptable. The request appeared to be either direct transport to Castlerea or Ballina, the entire journey not to exceed a half hour or, alternatively, a local special class attached to an ordinary national school. A leter was received in October 1984 from the officer of the Western Healt Board. He quoted the parents' letter which I previously mentioned. This stated, inter alia, that it was impossible for the child to travel in the vehicle without supervision. The inspector involved had another meeting with the parents, together with officials of the Western Care Association in October 1984 and again the group explained that, because of short attention span and distractability the child was unfit for travel because of the length of time the route to Castlerea would take.

The question of transport, in the meantime had been the subject of correspondence with CIE. The time required for the journey to Castlerea was one hour and 40 minutes. This is because there are five other children in various places who have to be picked up along the way. The time required for the journey to Ballina was about the same.

I cannot offer the child in question transport direct from her home to Castlerea and back each day, as the cost of hiring a vehicle for 108 miles a day — that is 27 miles four times a day — would exceed the amount which I have authority to spend. Neither could the additional cost of an escort be paid. As all but one of the solutions open to the Department had not been found acceptable, the one remaining was offered, that is the £300 per annum which I mentioned previously as a contribution towards the cost of transport by private means. This was offered to the parents but so far they have not replied.

It occurs to me that by the normal yardsticks, this child could well be considered to be somewhat outside the range of school transport. It may be that residential care might be the best option for her. However, I grant that this is a matter, in the final analysis, for the parents and something which I would not be in a position to impose, and have no notion of imposing on them. I understand from my most recent inquiries that the child has, since the beginning of April, been transported on a daily basis in a car to Castlebar. I have no information about the length of time the journey takes but I understand that there is no escort in the car. I understand that it is the parents who are responsible for organising this trip and my offer to them of £300 per annum, depending on the regularity of attendance at the school, which I have already made, still stands and can be availed of.

There has, as the Senator knows, been a suggestion that the Western Care Association might also fund this transport to some extent. A difficulty could arise here in that while Western Care Association is a private company, limited by guarantee, I understand it receives substantial funding from public moneys via the Western Health Board. It might be the case, therefore, that the transport would be subsidised twice over. At the same time I am aware that the mileage involved is considerable and that the petrol cost alone would be substantial. It is a matter to which I would need to give some thought. I also understand that there is the possibility if the child was enrolled in Castlebar it might be possible for the parents to arrange transport to a point about six miles away where they might connect with a vehicle operated by the Western Care Association.

The possibility of organising a special class attached to a national school in the general locality, which was mentioned by the parents to the inspector, has been fully investigated. However, there are not enough pupils in the area to justify setting up such a special class attached to an ordinary national school. I want to put the record straight and reply to some of the points made by the Senator. I can understand the Senator's concern. As far as I am concerned, since I came into this Department with responsibility for special education two and a half years ago we have established, where possible, a number of classes attached to the ordinary primary school, but one cannot attach a class to an ordinary primary school unless one has the potential for such a class. Unfortunately, that is not the case in relation to this pupil. It would be a step in the right direction and a step towards treating those children as special children, not as second-class children, that they would be educated and trained as near as possible to their own environment, that they would, like any other child, have school pals and that there would be special classes, where feasible, attached to the ordinary primary schools throughout the country. After two and a half years I have established 12 separate classes. In this case I disagree entirely with Senator Higgins when he said that he would not under any circumstances blame the parents for not accepting residential care. We have difficulties and we have problems in this regard. In some of those residential centres the children are being well cared for, well educated and well trained, but I would prefer the other alternative which I have mentioned. However, one cannot provide a taxi and an escort for each child if they are living in a remote area and if the distance is prohibitive in that regard.

I have investigated this area and this child and I have taken it on myself to read every word and every point made on the file. I am restricted in a number of ways in the provision of finance and when it comes to the grant of £300 for children in a similar position I must get the sanction of the Department of Finance. I have tried this before and I hope that it might be possible to increase that sum. We are talking about a difficult and isolated case. It is not possible for me either to provide a taxi with an escort for this child or under the circumstances to establish a local class attached to an ordinary national school. Having looked into the case in great detail, I feel that this child can, and it is possible to, avail of the transport. I have extended the transport five miles to meet this child. Many other children throughout the country are travelling much further to meet a transport service which is provided for those special schools or special classes. I would prefer to see a child of that sort educated as near as possible to home, but I am sure the Senator and the House will accept that there are exceptional cases where this is not possible. I recommend the parents concerned that they avail of the services and that they take the child, because it is now established beyond any shadow of a doubt that this child has travelled, unescorted or unaccompanied apart from the driver, in a car over the last number of weeks, and there is no way in which this problem can be met by the parents.

Senator Higgins also made the case that the £300 grant will not be paid unless the child does a full term in school. It is only right and I accept that where the child will attend school the grant is paid in arrears. You cannot pay it in advance and you cannot pay it for a child who will attend school for only part of the term. The law lays down that the grant is there available to a child if at the end of the school term the authorities within the school recommend that the child has attended the normal school days. Even if the grants were made available and we accepted the Western Health Board's contribution plus the contribution from the Department of Education, there is still an outstanding figure of approximately £2,300 to £2,500. This will be an enormous burden on the parents which they will not be in a position to meet.

In conclusion I ask the Senators and appeal to the parents concerned, even though I intend to have another look at the grants concerned and to have a further discussion with the Department of Finance, to accept the services available. We have extended the services and gone as far as we possibly can to meet the demands of that child. To me such are very special children. I am sure many Members of this House and parents throughout the country have children in a similar position who must travel much further to meet public transport, and it is not possible to meet all those demands. I will have a further look at the case. In the meantime I will be fairly concerned that the child and the parents may not be availing of the service available to them.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 May 1985.