Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2002: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Education and Science (Dr. Woods)

Education is central to the development of the individual. It is key to helping a person achieve his or her potential. It provides a person with the aptitudes and capacities to live as fulfilling a life as possible and to contribute to the greatest extent practicable to the life of the society in which he or she lives. This is true for all people, but it is especially true of those who, because of disabilities, are at risk of becoming marginalised in society. Without access to services that will meet their special education needs, people with disabilities who have such needs will be denied the capacity to develop as fulfilled members of society and society will be denied their contributions as citizens. This is very much a "lose lose" situation.

The way in which society has responded over the decades to the needs of children with disabilities is a topic too large for me to deal with at any length now. There is and always has been in society great affection for such children and a desire to respond to their needs. This is especially true of so many families who have dedicated themselves in a special way to their child who, because of a disability, needs special care and protection. It is also true of the many people in public and voluntary agencies who for years have provided vital services and support for people with special needs arising from a disability.

In the education sector significant resources have been provided for the education of children with special educational needs, yet for all that, it must be admitted that in the struggle to find resources for the education system generally the focus was primarily on the majority of children who did not have special needs. Special education commanded less attention and less of its share of the budget than should have been the case. Even so, many children with special needs have, through a combination of parental effort, voluntary agencies and public funding, received a good education which has prepared them well for life. Unfortunately, there are others about whom the same cannot be said. Children who could have achieved more in their lives, however limited their capabilities, have not benefited from education as they might have. Lack of resources, poor planning and ineffective co-ordination of service providers have failed them.

More recently the situation has been changing, and the Government has presided over an unprecedented level of development in special education services. In September 1999 the learning support teacher service was extended to every first and second level school in the country. As a result, the number of learning support teachers in the primary system has grown from 1,242 in September 1997 to 1,485 at present. In October 1998 the Government decided that all children with disabilities within the primary system should have an automatic entitlement to a response to their needs. As a result of this development, the number of special resource teachers catering for children with special needs in ordinary schools has increased from 104 to more than 1,500. At the same time the number of special needs assistants in the system has grown from less than 300 to approximately 3,000.

Since September 1999 the pupil-teacher ratios applicable in all special schools and special classes have been reduced to the levels recommended by the special education review committee. Since October 1998 the Department of Education and Science has recognised the distinct emotional needs of children with autism and made special dedicated provision for such children. As a result of this development, more than 90 dedicated special classes have been established to cater for children with autism. Each class caters for a maximum of six pupils and has the support of a teacher and two special needs assistants. Funding of €3.2 million has been made available in 2002 to support the development of a nationwide pre-school service for children with autism. Further funding of €3.2 million has been made available in the current year to support the extension of education programmes for children with autism throughout the month of July. A sum of €1.2 million is being provided in 2002 to support the operation of three pilot projects utilising the applied behavioural analysis model of approach to the education of children with autism.

Developments in technology can be of great assistance to the educational development of children with disabilities. In the current year I have secured additional funding of €2.2 million to facilitate the purchase of special equipment for children with special needs. This brings the allocation for equipment to almost €4 million in the current year, compared with an allocation of €1 million in 1998.

Since September 1999 funding has been made available to facilitate the appointment of escorts on every special school transport service that conveys pupils to and from special schools and classes. In excess of 600 individual routes are involved in this. Funding is also provided for the purchase of a safety harness where required. There are now 108 special schools with 6,614 pupils, 1,089 teachers and 934 full-time equivalent special needs assistants. There are 465 special classes with 3,743 pupils, 465 teachers and 653 full-time equivalent special needs assistants.

There are approximately 12,736 pupils attending primary schools on an integrated basis. These children are supported by approximately 1,500 full-time equivalent resource teachers and approximately 2,031 special needs assistants. A total of 49 special classes dedicated to autism are attached to special schools and a further 49 are attached to ordinary national schools. These 98 classes can cater for up to 588 pupils with autism. More than 50 other children are receiving an education in other publicly funded facilities, such as the CABAS facility in Cork.

I am aware that people can be sceptical about statistics. However, these figures represent real expenditure, real people providing services and, most of all, a real provision enhancement for the services provided for children with special educational needs. Even the strongest critics of the services provided for these children cannot dismiss these developments and additional resources as negligible. In the last three years our annual expenditure on children with special needs has risen from €7 million per annum to €70 million per annum. These figures represent a significant resourcing of the special education system. I accept that still more needs to be done. Through this Bill I will ensure more is done. Provision which has been made to date as a matter of administrative arrangement will now be available to children with special educational needs as a matter of right of law.

In October 2000 I established a special task force to carry out an independent review of current approaches to the educational needs of children with autism. This task force, which also made recommendations for the future development of services in this area, presented its report to me in November 2001. Although it had specific focus on autism, many of the task force's recommendations were equally applicable to the education generally of people with special educational needs. I have paid special attention to the recommendations of the task force in the area of legislative issues and incorporated them into the Bill. In particular, the Bill covers the following proposals of the task force: enactment of a civil rights statute dealing with the educational rights of persons with disabilities; a clear presumption in favour of mainstreaming; a statement of educational need and an individual education plan for each individual; a statement of the resources required to implement the plan; a statutory right related to professional and other services; a statutory right to appropriate ongoing education and training; a method of evaluating progress; an independent appeals-complaints mechanism.

As the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory framework within which the education of children and people who have special needs due to disabilities can be guaranteed as a right enforceable in law. The Bill sets out a range of services which must be provided, including assessments, individual education plans and support services. It provides for a process of mediation where needs are not met. The central role of parents in the education of their children is also provided for. The Bill establishes the National Council for Special Education through which the Bill, as enacted, will be given effect.

The education of children with special educational needs alongside those who do not have such needs has long been Government policy. The Bill gives statutory force to this policy. In doing so, it is acting in the best interests of the children concerned, who can best grow and develop in the company of their peer group. The Bill provides that the needs of the child concerned and the wishes of his or her parents are taken into account. Similarly, the needs of the children alongside whom the child is to be educated and the efficient use of resources must also be considered. The section goes on to provide that the education of a child with special needs shall occur in special classes and separate schools. Settings removed from the ordinary school environment will only be used when education in that environment with the use of appropriate support services cannot adequately meet the needs of the child.

Early identification of children with special needs is essential if those needs are to be identified and proper planning undertaken to meet them. The Bill provides for a system of registration of such children, involving health boards, parents, schools and the National Council for Special Education. Where a health board is of the opinion that a child has, or is likely to have, special educational needs, it must inform the parents of the child and the council as soon as possible. The purpose of this provision is to alert parents and the council to the needs of the child concerned in order that, in the case of the council, it can plan ahead for the child and intervene early in his or her education, if appropriate.

Parents may also bring their concerns about the potential special needs of their children to the attention of the council by seeking to have the child entered in the register. Where it receives an application for registration, the council can arrange for an assessment of the child by appropriate experts, including experts in psychology, medicine and education. Parental consent to an assessment is required. In carrying out the assessment regard will be had to any relevant assessment that has been commissioned or carried out by a health board. This is part of the process of ensuring that the different services provided to the child are co-ordinated in the child's interests. A report on the assessment is to be made available, as soon as possible after the assessment is completed, to the parents of the child and to any people engaged in the education of the child who have a need to know.

The drawing up of education plans tailored to meet the educational needs of children with special educational needs is a key provision of the Bill. Through the planning process, disabilities can be identified, needs assessed, goals decided on and progress monitored. In preparing the plan, the special educational needs organiser assigned to a school is given very special responsibility. It is he or she who must convene a team of people, including the parents of the child and various professionals, to assist in preparing the plan. The planning process must take account of assessment of needs carried out by health boards.

The matters to be addressed in an education plan include the nature and degree of the child's disability, the present level of educational performance, where relevant, the child's special educational needs, the services to be provided to him or her and the outcomes or goals which the child is to achieve over a specified period. This period cannot be longer than 12 months. The transitions of a child with special educational needs from primary to post-primary school and from school to adult services are recognised as particularly important milestones and the plan is specifically required to address these from as early as 14 years in the case of transition out of school to adult appropriate provision.

The Bill provides for the review at regular intervals of individual education plans both by schools and the special educational needs organisers. The purpose of these reviews is to establish if children are achieving the objectives set in the plan. If they are not, then the plan is to be amended accordingly.

The Bill provides for a range of duties for schools in respect of children with special educational needs. These duties are additional to those already imposed on schools by legislation such as the Equal Status Act and the Education Act. This Bill provides that a school must make all practicable efforts to assist a child who is not benefiting from the regular education programme, prior to concluding that he or she is a child with special educational needs, unless, of course, the child's special needs are obvious. The intention here is to avoid over-identification of a child as having special needs when reasonable accommodation for the child within the standard school programme can meet his or her needs. If a child has special educational needs the school is required to prepare an individual education plan for the child. To assist the school in this, the National Council for Special Education will set down guidelines. The special educational needs organiser for the school will arrange for the assessment of the child and the plan will be based on that assessment. Provision is also made for consultation with the parents and other relevant people in preparing the plan.

The Bill also provides that the board of management of a school must ensure that, as regards admission to and participation in the school, a policy of maximum accommodation for children with special educational needs is in place and implemented. Schools must make all reasonable efforts to meet the needs of students, co-operate with the council and contribute to awareness among staff and students of the needs of children with special educational needs.

It is my intention that the Bill will give an effective and meaningful voice to parents in the education of their children. An essential element of that voice is the capacity to have decisions of schools and the council reviewed independently. The Bill provides that parents of a child may appeal to an independent appeals board against any statement or description of their child's special educational needs or any other statement or description appearing in the educational plan which they consider incorrect or inadequate to meet the child's special educational needs. It is likely, however, that many parents will wish to pursue a less formal approach to a review of decisions. For that reason the Bill provides that before processing an appeal, the appeals board will inform the parents concerned of the procedures that are available for mediation. Mediation will be voluntary and parents may withdraw at any time.

The mediation will be facilitated by an independent person, appointed with the agreement of all parties concerned, who will be familiar with the educational needs of children with disabilities and any relevant legislation. Any agreement made through this process of mediation will be set down in writing and signed by all relevant parties. The appeals board will not deal with an appeal if the parents concerned choose to avail of the mediation procedure, except where they decide to withdraw from the mediation process. On hearing an appeal, the appeals board may give directions to the council, which it must implement, or may dismiss the appeal.

Provision of statutory rights to education and training to those whose education in a school environment ends is an important part of the Bill. The rights of people with special needs as regards equal treatment are already provided for in legislation such as the Equal Status Act and the Education Act. However, this Bill goes further and provides statutory, enforceable rights to people as regards access to and benefit from continuing education and training.

Section 16 sets out a range of education and training provision which is to be made for adults with disabilities. If the council considers that on the person's reaching 18 years of age, his or her special educational needs can be met most effectively by providing for a continuation of his or her education in the school which he or she is attending, it can arrange for the person to remain at that school for the period of one further school year. If, on the other hand, the council considers that the person concerned can have his or her special educational needs met more effectively in a setting other than a school, it is required to inform the relevant health board not less than one year prior to the eighteenth birthday of the person concerned. The council and the relevant board will, following consultation with the young person concerned, his or her parents and others with appropriate expertise, consider what is the most appropriate educational provision that can be made for him or her post school. If the council and the health board are of the opinion that the person concerned can benefit from training or employment support services, FÁS will be informed and it will exercise its statutory functions to make appropriate provision.

If the council and the health board consider that the person concerned is not capable of benefiting from a programme of training or employment support immediately, or at all, the relevant health board will make provision for a programme of continuing education and personal development in a setting appropriate to the age and needs of the person concerned for as long as the health board considers necessary to assist the person to make the best use of his or her capacities or until the person concerned can move to training or employment. Provision for a person in this situation must include a qualified teacher in a multi-disciplinary team which will be required to provide the necessary services.

The Bill specifically acknowledges that many people with special educational needs will move to higher, further and continuing education and states that nothing in the Bill restricts the right of a person to receive and benefit from such education in the same way and to the same extent as a person who does not have a disability.

The Bill establishes the National Council for Special Education as the body charged with ensuring that the Bill as enacted will be given full effect. Its specific duties include the compilation and maintenance of the register, the co-ordination of special education in conjunction with schools and other educational institutions and the regular review of provision made by such institutions. It will have responsibility to conduct research in the area of special education and provide relevant advice and information to the Minister. The Bill provides for the structure of the board and for a consultative forum which will be drawn from the education partners. This forum will provide advice to the council.

The provision of appropriate education services to children and adults with special educational needs crucially involves close co-operation and co-ordination of activities between education and health authorities. The health boards have a key role to play in providing support services such as the various therapies people concerned need and also because children and others with disabilities often reside in health board facilities or attend day care services. It is regrettably the case that services to date have not been as co-ordinated as they should be. The Bill when enacted will resolve these difficulties.

Section 36 provides that the council may from time to time request a health board to take specified actions where it considers this to be necessary to the delivery of an adequate education plan or, more generally, to assist the council in carrying out its functions. Prior consultation with a health board is required before a request is made to it. A health board must comply with a request unless, in its view, the assistance requested is not necessary, taking the action would not be consistent with its functions or it would not be reasonable to comply having regard to its resources. If the health board decides that it cannot comply with a request of the council, it must state its reasons and the council may appeal the refusal to comply. On hearing an appeal, the appeals board may direct the health board to comply with the request or dismiss the appeal.

These provisions bring clarity to the role of the health boards, provide a formal process through which the boards, following consultation with them, can be informed of what is required and provide a structure for resolving disputes. The beneficiaries of these provisions will be those who rely on the services of the boards to access appropriate education and training services and their parents.

There will be those who will criticise the fact that we have not legislated sooner for the education of people with special educational needs. It is worth remembering, however, that the practice of legislating for education is for the most part a relatively recent innovation. The Education Act is just over three years old. In the term of office of the Government there has been a more comprehensive and far reaching programme of legislation covering all areas of the education system than in the entire period since the foundation of the State. It gives me special pleasure to introduce the Bill as the final piece of legislation in that programme. In preparing it we have had the benefit of being able to review the law applying in other jurisdictions, notably the United States and the United Kingdom. We have had the benefit of the advice of a number of advisory committees and groups, notably the task force on autism and earlier the special education review committee. We have had the experience of past failures and successes to guide us. Most importantly, we have consistently had the voice of parents telling us how they want to see a legal basis constructed for the education of their children.

I want to move forward with this Bill without delay in order that the potential benefits it offers to those with special educational needs and their parents can become a reality as quickly as possible. I rely on the support of the House in that endeavour.

I thank Senators for taking the Bill at this time. It is important legislation which will confer rights. We are providing many necessary services. There has been a huge change in this regard in recent years as a result of the O'Donoghue case and subsequently the Sinnott case to some extent. While services are being provided, parents would like to see them copperfastened in legislation. I thank Senators for the opportunity to bring forward the Bill tonight.

Mr. Manning

I welcome the Minister to the House. This may be a good Bill. Everybody empathises with its objectives, the people it is designed to help and its proposals. However, I have no way of knowing tonight whether it is good or bad. The Minister has put a fuse to a time bomb which may well go off in his face over the next couple of weeks.

The Minister need not thank this side of the House for taking the Bill as we opposed this just as we will oppose taking Committee Stage tomorrow. If the Minister thinks he will get it through all Stages in the Dáil on Thursday, he may have another thing coming. He would be wise to think again about the approach he has adopted to the Bill. There will be generous support for it, but on past experience it needs to be teased out carefully because it deals with an area pregnant with litigation possibilities.

A copy of the Bill appeared in our pigeon holes at 10.25 a.m. Most of us have been busy in the House all day. It is normal courtesy and practice, when a Bill is published, to allow a period of a couple of weeks in order that Members can acquaint themselves with it, talk to various interest groups, educate themselves and find out the reaction of practitioners as to how it will operate in practice. Without any advance notice, we were given six to eight hours today to do this while we had other work to do. Nobody here is prepared to deal with the Bill tonight. We have not seen it nor had time to examine it and have not had time to talk to people about it. Nobody is in a position to give it the sort of attention it needs.

We are being told to take Committee Stage tomorrow. How can we go and talk to all the groups involved and examine the Bill in detail to see what amendments are needed? The Minister then proposes to put it through all Stages in the Dáil on Thursday. Today I did what anybody does when a Bill appears. I rang the various groups, most of which were unaware the Bill was being brought forward. Others were scrambling to get copies of it. When I called them back later they were up in arms. The Minister has a revolt on his hands. They are angry because they were not consulted. Time after time I heard from various groups that they had written and asked to speak to the Minister but were told he was too busy to see them. They are angry because they have had no input into the legislation. They do not trust the Minister or his Department and believe that this is big brother telling them what to do. Of all the lessons learned in recent years in this area the Minister must know that he has to talk to people to bring them along with him.

The Bill has been foisted upon us. Solomon Grundy born on Tuesday, married on Wednesday, dead on Thursday will be its life. Why is it so urgent? Is it a banner the Minister wants to bring into the election campaign? It has far more to do with electioneering than with resolving the particular problems it proposes to address. How can the Minister justify rushing through a complex Bill like this in three days, particularly the last days of the Government when timetables are already overloaded?

This morning the Leader of the House spoke about lightening the burden, but suddenly these Bills come along. I could accept it if I thought the Minister wanted the Bill to pass through Second Stage in order that it could be available for discussion throughout and after the election campaign. The Bill cries out for detailed Committee Stage debate, especially since its commencement order will be determined by the Minister. The wherewithal is not in place for the Minister to sign an order next week commencing its operation. Therefore, it is being rushed through for the wrong reasons. It is part of the election campaign. The Minister will be sorry he did it this way.

Every group to which I spoke today was angry at the way it was treated by the Minister. They raised aspects of the Bill to which they took exception. Their reaction was hostile and they were concerned about the increasing layers of bureaucracy. They believed the Bill was not child centred and that there were too many let out clauses where, subject to the Department of Finance, things could or could not be done. There are a great number of fail safe provisions in it. There are concerns about guarantees about getting an IEP and that there is no statutory requirement for consultation with parents on these matters.

I spoke at length to Mrs. Kathryn Sinnott today. She received copies of the Bill at 4 a.m. and spent most of the hours since then examining it in detail. She is particularly angry at what she sees in it. She says the Bill "rows back on the promises made after the Supreme Court decision". She totally rejects the Bill at this stage, although she may have a more balanced view tomorrow. As it stands, she finds the Bill a great betrayal.

If the Minister wants to get good legislation through, he should revert to the normal procedures of these Houses. He should allow Members time to study the Bill in detail, have a proper consultative process and Committee Stage debate rather than trying to get it through on a guillotine of three days. There is an arrogance of mindset which suggests that the Minister and the Department know best, the Houses of the Oireachtas do not count, they do not need to be given time to study the Bill, they do not need to be consulted, there is no need for reflection and the Minister has all the answers.

In everything else the Department has done in the area of special needs and autism and so on, it has been wrong as often as it has been right. The Department of Education and Science does not have a good track record. It is not trusted by the parents or very many of the groups outside. That is particularly true in the history of the Department. It gives me no pleasure to say so – I prefer to say positive things about people – but there are people throughout the country who are up in arms about this Bill. They do not like the way it is being rushed in and they do not like the lack of consultation. If the Minister wants this Bill to be treated properly, he should stop this mad rush to get it through as an election fig leaf. He should engage in the proper process. If he does so, he will get a Bill which will stand up in court and make the people happy so that they do not have a sense of being steamrolled.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am disappointed with the force and choice of words of my colleague, Senator Manning, in relation to this Bill. I read the legislation and have been reading around the subject extensively since 1998 and the Education (Welfare) Act, 1999. Provision was made in that Act to deal with this problem and has been ongoing since then. We set up the task force two years ago which is dealing with recommendations and there have been many consultation procedures during that time. I totally refute the claim that there has not been sufficient consultation. I understand the Senator's point that the Bill is coming at this late stage in the term but we have had a consultation process and will continue to do so. The Minister is available to listen to everyone's point of view and we have an opportunity tonight for people to express their views.

I have knowledge of this area from another forum where I worked in this areas of disadvantage, special needs and special education needs. I welcome this Bill because it puts a statutory framework on what has been initiated over the past few years – a framework which will endorse the rights of people to special education. That is to be welcomed. The provisions are in the Bill through the national council for special education needs, the details in relation to individual education plans, how the assessments will be carried out and the extra support services.

One must acknowledge the increase in the number of support teachers in primary schools in recent years. The number of special resource teachers who deal with special needs in ordinary schools has increased from 104 to more than 1,500. To suggest that we have not been doing our work over the past few years is most unfair. I know the actual position.

Of course everything is not right and more needs to be done in this area. Enough is never enough where special education needs are concerned. We must always pay particular attention to how we can best move things forward and improve our education plans and assessments. More needs to be done but this is a start. This Bill will put this in a statutory framework, which is a great step forward. I welcome the opportunities it provides.

I stress to the Minister how important the national council for special education will be because it will set down guidelines from pre-school to adulthood. It is important that the members of that council will represent psychologists, teachers, special education remedial teachers, the caring profession and people who will have a knowledge, understanding and empathy in terms of how we should move forward and the procedures which should be set up to deal with this sensitive area. The national council is the core of these provisions and if we do not get that right the legislation will go nowhere. However, I believe we are on the right road.

The Minister said we will have assessments in the ordinary schools and I welcome the idea of an integrated system being approached first – trying to contain matters within the ordinary school context. We will refer the matter to school authorities and the specialists in the schools to set up an educational plan dealing with the individual nature of the disability and how it will be contained in the school setting.

I have some concern about who will carry out the assessments and how they will be done. I understand the Minister will have special organisers who will be the link between the national council and the schools. I understand these special organisers will deal with a group of schools but I ask the Minister to spell out further how that will work on the ground. We have had an example of that in the past and sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. I remember that the Minister was dealing with referral of young children with educational disability who were referred to the psychological centre in the Mater Hospital and very often the system broke down in the transition from one area to another.

It is also important that we consult with parents because they sometimes need a lot of help in this area and do not know how to resolve the problem. I have said in numerous other speeches that those people dealing with problems – the experts and clinicians – need to have an empathy with parents because of the concern that they will have for the child concerned. It is important that parents' feelings are considered along with the clinical assessment of the child.

I welcome the process in the area of appeals and mediation and the fact that parents will have an opportunity to appeal if they are not happy with a particular education plan. The Minister has said that if they are in the mediation process they cannot go to the appeals board to have their case heard fully. I would like to think that people would work through the mediation process and then, if necessary, go a step further to the appeals board. Perhaps I am misinterpreting that point.

Dr. Woods

They would withdraw.

Ms Ormonde

They would have to withdraw because it would be a step forward in the process. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that.

I am interested in the area of early intervention because, as we all know, the younger the child is picked up – as early as three years of age – the more we can serve the needs of children in that category. It is important that there is co-ordination because detecting problems with children under the age of three is difficult when they are not yet in school. The health boards and the links with them through the public health nurse – or whoever is dealing with it – will have to spot that there is a problem. I am unsure as to how that will work. How will that work for children under three years of age? I believe in early intervention because if we get it right at that stage, we can set in motion a series of support services which could help parents in arranging an education plan for students.

I welcome the fact that those who are in adult education facilities will be allowed to stay on if they can be accommodated in a normal classroom and if the educational programme works well for them. If that does not work, however, the Bill will enable the school authorities to work with the organiser and the health board to formulate some plan to facilitate them in another setting. Perhaps the programme could be transferred to FÁS or another training body. Whatever way it develops, the health board, in conjunction with the parents, will facilitate the further development of appropriate education and personal development according to the child's or adult's ability. Such a provision for lifelong learning is to be welcomed.

The Bill represents a great start, although it has been a long time coming. I have no doubt that everyone interested in the area of disability and special education needs will welcome this legislation. More needs to be done and there will be areas that need to be tidied up. Since 1998, however, huge investment has been made in special education programmes in schools, including resources, special assistants, remedial teachers, reducing the pupil-teacher ratio and involving a co-ordinated approach between schools, health boards and experts in education, psychology and medicine generally. All those elements have been collated to make sure they work well and one cannot say that is a bad idea; it is a great move. We would have liked it to have happened six months ago, but the task force has given us time to scrutinise its recommendations which the Bill reflects.

The Minister is right to bring the legislation forward now. I have no doubt that the relevant interest groups will be pleased with the legislation and will be prepared to consult with the Minister. If there are any areas of doubt, I am sure the Minister will bring forward his views on Committee Stage tomorrow. I thank the Government for introducing the legislation and for keeping it on the agenda for the past four years. If that had not been done, it would not have been possible to deal with the Bill today. Such legislation cannot be snatched out of thin air and presented to the Oireachtas. It has come about as a result of consultation, work and deep reflection.

I look forward to the Minister's reply concerning the various doubts that have been raised by Opposition speakers. I congratulate him. Although much remains to be done, we are on the right road towards creating a statutory framework to give those with special education needs the same rights as those in ordinary schools. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Toole

I wish I could share Senator Ormonde's optimism. I remind the Minister that on previous occasions I defended every section of the Education Bill and the Teaching Council Bill, but I will be opposing this Bill. As someone who has led the move towards a greater partnership approach in many aspects of Irish life, I am appalled at the way this legislation has come before the House. There were no discussions on the heads of the Bill, despite the fact that the Minister's Department gave a clear commitment to the INTO and to various disability groups that there would be such discussions. I do not know where the Minister's advice came from or how we can find ourselves in this situation which is just a re-run of the O'Donoghue and Jamie Sinnott cases. Nobody put their toe into the water to check what the response might be.

The Bill is high on bureaucracy, low on resources and there are extraordinary gaps in it. The fact that there has been no consultation shows in every section. It is obvious in terms of where parents and school boards of management stand in this legislation. I assure the Minister that unless significant changes are made, school management associations will not support the Bill and neither will parents' associations or the teacher unions.

The legislation starts off with the right idea and I have no problem with the Long Title, but the contents of the Bill do not reflect it. I do not see where the rights of persons with disabilities are in the Bill. I heard the discussion on those rights, but they have not been written into the legislation and I want that to happen. The difficulties for school managements and parents will cause chaos among principal teachers and school staff members. There will be an appalling reaction to the Bill among teachers.

I asked four officials of the INTO to examine the Bill this afternoon. I asked the first person to make a list of what matters should be in a Bill such as this and to check if they were included. I asked a second person to go through the Bill and to tell me what things were missing from it. I asked a third person to take a school principal's view to determine the gaps concerning children. Finally, I asked the fourth person to give me a general response to the Bill. All four of them, separately and individually, were appalled by what they found. The idea is great but the legislation is unworkable.

The Minister should put himself in the position of a principal of a two to seven teacher primary school who is trying to implement this legislation. Can he tell me how, when and where it could be done? It cannot be done. It is grist to the mill of those who say the Department of Education and Science does not care about how schools operate or how they can implement plans. This is another example of where those of us with great concern for children with special needs will find ourselves fighting battles on two fronts – one on behalf of those children and another against this appalling example of bureaucracy which will fall flat on its face.

This Bill may have started out as some sort of electorally attractive legislation but it will prove a huge electoral handicap. It will make people furious. The Bill contains a statement and a path to identify needs, as well as a mechanism for checking whether those needs have been met. What the Bill lacks, however, are the resources to implement the statement. The relationship between principals, class teachers, special education needs organisers and the team generally has not been written into the Bill. We are establishing a council that will have authority over certain aspects of the operation of ordinary schools, but it has no inter-linkage with the system for ordinary schools.

In section 1, I have grave difficulty with the definition of a child with special educational needs:

"child with special educational needs" means a child who, because of attributes arising from a disability, is unable to benefit from an ordinary school programme without special classes or other special education services and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;

I do not agree with that definition. It is completely wrong and I do not think any parent would agree with it. Parents and teachers would say that the ordinary school programme would be inadequate to meet all the needs of such a pupil, but I do not think anybody would say that it would be of no benefit to him or her or that he or she could not benefit from it. The definition should refer to "somebody who needs more than the ordinary school programme". What is required is an addition or an extra element. There will always be some benefit. It is an appalling statement about the Minister's curriculum that he would say that any child in the system is unable to benefit from it in any way. That cannot and should not be right.

I do not have a problem with examining inclusion or integration as an objective where a child with special needs would be integrated into or included in the ordinary school system. That would be the objective of teachers, parents and school authorities wherever it can be done. However, has the Minister considered the workload involved where a principal is of the opinion that a student cannot benefit from the system and the Bill requires him to take "such efforts as are practicable to meet the educational needs of that student?" Can the Minister imagine my explaining this to schools with overly large classes or which are located in substandard school buildings or which are waiting for resources to make it work? This is additional work for those schools without the resources being put in place.

The Bill requires a principal to prepare an education plan. I agree with this idea. No one can object to the making of an individual assessment to which we would refer. In preparing the plan the principal is required to consult the parents of the child concerned, the special needs organiser with responsibility for the school concerned and such other persons as he or she considers appropriate. There is no mention of the class teacher who might be important. There is no mention of the class teacher anywhere in the Bill.

Will the Minister say how he or anyone else will explain to teachers the difference between this and the occasion when it is decided that the special needs organiser will prepare the plan? In this case, the special needs organiser is required to convene a group of people, referred to in the Bill as a "team," to provide him or her with advice on the preparation of the plan and the team is required to provide the advice accordingly. The Bill goes on to state the team will include the parents of the child and one or more of the following: the principal, a psychologist and other persons. At the same time a principal is expected to do all this on his or her own with no team or resources for the 10% of children in the school who have special needs. It is not going to work and I appeal to the Minister not to come back with words to the effect that it will. It will not work. He has addressed principals' groups in recent years and knows their views. He has also heard from me. We have made this case to the benchmarking body. It is unworkable at this level.

The Bill refers to assessment of needs, which I agree is an essential part of the operation. It states an assessment "shall be carried out by persons possessing such expertise as the special educational needs organiser . may consider appropriate." Who would be able to tell a person about the special educational needs of a child? To whom would that person go? Would it be to a medical doctor, social worker or therapist as specified in the Bill? I do not think so. A psychologist is specified. I would agree with that if it was an educational psychologist, but there is no point going to a clinical psychologist to work out the educational needs of a child. A teacher is also specified, to which I say, "Well done".

This section of the Bill is a disaster. If the Department of Education and Science has not learned at this stage the difference between an educational and clinical psychologist in determining educational needs, we have a long road to travel. I am appalled that, 20 years after we concluded this argument with the Department, we are back into it again. It is an appalling insult to educationists and the teaching profession that the Minister would tell me that educational needs would be determined by a medical doctor, social worker, therapist or psychologist. It is no wonder teachers feel hard done by and not properly catered for. As one goes through the Bill, it gets worse in terms of these issues.

Section 10, which deals with the content of the education plan, refers to the goals a child is to achieve over a period not exceeding 12 months. I would like to talk to the person who wrote this and bring him to a school which deals with children with severe and profound disabilities where what can be done in 12 months is hardly measurable and the most that can be done is to assess the position. I expect Senator Kett to support me, if not publicly, then at least privately, when I say the Government should withdraw this legislation because it cannot go through in its current form. It will not do the business and will cause many problems at many levels.

What I find most cynical is that, in section 10, there is a list of matters to be specified in the plan. These include the nature and degree of the child's disability and the special education and related support services to be provided. That is fair enough, but who will provide them? From where will they come?

The next section requires a principal to conduct a review of the plan at regular intervals of not less than once a year. Such a principal, who may teach a class full time and have to discuss matters with parents in the classroom with the children still present, will have to write up education plans of which he or she will have to conduct an assessment once a year or more often. All this is to be done, probably although not necessarily, without resources. I do not know from where these resources will come. From where will the back-up come and what will happen if it does not?

The advice of the INTO to teachers, principals and school authorities will be to go along with assessing educational needs, but until such time as provision is made for schools, we will take a stand on these issues. We will not have children made pawns in a political game to move this issue forward and over the edge of the cliff towards which it is heading.

What is appalling about the statement of needs is that the only person who can use the appeal process if he or she has a problem with the nature or any aspect of the plan is the parent, although the teacher, school authorities and child are also partners in the process. Teachers may believe there are flaws in a plan which is not produced in a school or that other items should be included in it and that they should have a right to appeal to have the plan modified or changed or to make the case that it does not adequately meet the needs of a child. Given that the plan can be produced by people with no educational background, it is obvious this could happen.

On the issue of those in charge of the process, the special educational needs organisers, the Bill states the council may appoint such and so many of these people as it determines are necessary to perform the function without giving any indication as to what type of people they might be. Will they have educational qualifications? I would insist that they would if they are to be special educational needs organisers.

The Bill lists the duties of schools' boards of management. I do not have the time to detail all of them, but among them are the requirement to make all reasonable efforts to meet the special educational needs of pupils, to co-operate with the council, to ensure relevant teachers and employees are aware of a child's needs, to inculcate in students of the school an awareness of the needs of people with disabilities and to ensure as regards admission that a policy of maximum accommodation for children with special educational needs be implemented. The school authorities will state that is fine, but they will also request to be allowed to determine the resources they need to do this.

We are talking about 3,000 school boards throughout the country struggling in an under-provided school system. While I give the Minister credit for the increases in resources to schools and would not be mealy-mouthed about it, what is being asked of boards in the Bill is impossible. They are being asked to do something without being given the resources to do it.

I could speak for another six hours on the Bill but will conclude on a final piece of cynicism. We are establishing a council which will make decisions on best educational practice in schools. It will tell us how to do the job. Who will make up its membership? Will it consist of educationists of the highest order? The Bill states it will consist of a chairperson and ten ordinary members. From where will they come? The chairperson and ordinary members of the council will be appointed by the Minister from among persons who have a special interest in or knowledge relating to the education of children with disabilities. If this is openness and accountability in this day and age, it is unacceptable. If we are to establish a council, we need to ensure it reflects the educational concerns of school managements, parents, teachers, the Department and, probably, the health boards.

Dr. Woods

It will do so.

Mr. O'Toole

I want to see that in the Bill. If it is not included, it makes us all suspicious and will not emerge in that way. The council should have a weighting towards educationists.

Dr. Woods

The Senator referred to children who do not have a right. The Bill is giving them a right they never had.

An Cathaoirleach

I call on Senator O'Toole to conclude, please.

Mr. O'Toole

All through the Bill there are references to "the consent of the Minister for Finance" and "with the approval of the Minister for Finance". The resources are not in place. The Bill is cynical legislation which is being introduced without consultation with the partners, including those concerned with autism, who said they have not been consulted. It will prove to be a severe embarrassment to the Government.

Mr. Gibbons

I welcome the Minister and while I welcome the Bill, I have reservations about it. There have been tremendous improvements in the area of special education over the past four or five years, as the Minister outlined. Although I missed the early part of his speech, I have read the text. Nobody can deny that there have been great improvements. I laud the objectives of the Bill wholeheartedly. It is most important to establish a legislative framework around this area, the justification for which has existed for some time. In relation to the methodology, I have serious reservations about the Bill. I tend to agree with Senators Manning and O'Toole that this is high on bureaucracy and low on resources. There is great detail in relation to structures, how things are to be put in place and will operate. Matters are currently operating in a very similar way, but there are huge deficiencies.

School transport is an entitlement of every person with a disability. The contract is with CIE or Bus Éireann as the case may be and has been subcontracted out to various transport operators who are entitled to put three passengers to a bench designed for two. That may be all right for small children who can fit in comfortably. However, some people with disabilities are much bigger than their age would suggest and are also put on a bench for two. We discussed road safety earlier this afternoon, including the use of mobile phones in cars and the need for seat belts, particularly in back seats. There is an ongoing television advertising campaign – quite rightly so – yet on school buses seat belts are not obligatory. That is one of the issues which give rise to my concern about the methodology of the Bill and the lack of resources. It is fine to have the objectives and justification for putting a structure in place but unless it is backed up by resources one is at nothing.

I also go along with Senator Manning's view that it is unfortunate we have not had an opportunity to look at this important Bill in detail. I would prefer to have time to go through it in far more detail than was possible. That is unfortunate and the legislation will suffer as a result. It relates to an area about which people speak from the heart, giving their views freely and openly. It is not a political issue and never will be. I regret there is not more time to discuss it in detail. There is considerable bureaucracy involved.

The national council for special education is being established which is a very good idea. Special educational needs organisers are being put in place, of which I am totally in favour. However, I am concerned as to how many will be appointed because, unless there are sufficient to cater for existing needs, they will not be able to do their job effectively. Will the pupils benefit? With the existing system, although a great deal of good work is being done, there are, unfortunately, huge deficiencies due to the lack of support services at the coal face.

Another area of concern is in relation to wheelchairs. A young person getting a wheelchair at seven or eight years of age is liable to be told that a replacement will only be provided at age 16 or 17 years, even though they will have long outgrown the original wheelchair. That is appalling. The cost of determining whether a person needs a wheelchair is far greater than its actual cost. It is time to put resources where they are needed.

The situation with regard to speech therapy in special schools is nothing short of appalling. As Senator Ormonde pointed out, early intervention is vitally important. There are not enough speech therapists or educational psychologists. There are not enough graduates coming out of college and one reason is that they cannot get into college because of the high requirements under the points system. That is not to say they would not make very good educational psychologists, speech therapists or occupational therapists. We need to look at this area in far greater detail because, in the final analysis, it is the pupils with disabilities who will benefit. That is where the focus should be.

The requirement for social workers in special schools needs to be taken on board. It was piloted in a number of places some 25 years ago and worked very effectively but never seemed to get off the ground properly. The reasoning behind it arises from the various dealings between such schools and other organisations, including health boards. A school may be at a location serving two, three or even four health boards which can give rise to a great deal of red tape. The appointment of a social worker, with responsibility for looking after all the details, would enable matters to run much more efficiently and teachers to focus on what they are supposed to do rather than chasing health boards on an ongoing basis.

While I support the Bill, I have some reservations about it and hope that when we come to Committee Stage the Minister will have an open mind regarding suggestions from both sides of the House. This is something about which people genuinely feel strongly, as I am sure does the Minister.

Mr. Norris

I will return to the very interesting and extremely forthright speech of Senator Gibbons. I honour him for it because, although he sits on the Government benches, he made it clear that he has very strong reservations about the Bill. That is significant and it is a tribute to the House and to him as an individual that he is comfortable, or perhaps so uncomfortable, that he has to make a speech like it.

I have not even attempted to read the Bill in the very short space of time it has been available to us. If I had only read the Minister's speech without hearing the comments of Senators Manning, O'Toole and Gibbons, I would be congratulating the Minister for doing such a wonderful job. Towards the end of Senator O'Toole's speech, the Minister invoked the concept of rights. Rights were referred to in the Minister's speech – it is all over it – but where are they in the Bill? I do not see them, but perhaps the Minister can spell them out. I imagine this is why Mrs. Sinnott, among others, has opposed the Bill and that is why I will oppose it. Underneath what Senator Gibbons said is the implication that this is not a child-centred Bill and I do not believe it is.

At the heart of the concern that led to the production of the Bill, post-haste in this House, is political motivation with an election coming. That is a pity. It is a shame because children should be at the centre of the Bill and it is clear that they are not. As Senator O'Toole said, it is hedged with so many provisions and let-out clauses, such as "subject to the Department of Finance", "as far as possible" or "as far as is capable". I cannot remember the exact words from glancing through the Bill, but it is so vague, particularly in terms of the production of resources. From where are all these things coming? I do not understand it. I still hear about schools running raffles to provide things that are not provided by the Department of Education and Science. From where will we get all these extra resources all of a sudden? There does not seem to be any provision or planning for that in the Bill.

That highlights the deficiencies and problems of the legislation. The way it was introduced was extraordinary and scandalous. It is unprecedented, despite the fact that this is the end of term and we are used to every Administration railroading legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is a Bill in an area that has already been in trouble. There has already been a Government backdown. The Bill is suddenly produced and we are supposed to take all Stages tomorrow, although we only got the Bill some time this morning. Perhaps the Cathaoirleach will remind me if it was before the Order of Business or during it that the Bill was delivered to our pigeon-holes. I think I am right that it was this morning. It is astonishing, given the Bill's size and degree of complication, that we are expected to speak on other Bills while digesting this one and coming up with a reasoned analysis of it. It is virtually impossible.

Thank God we have people like Senator O'Toole in the House. It shows the relevance of university seats because he is elected from that constituency and has direct and special expertise in it. For a number of years he has been head of one of the most significant unions in the area. He has the resources to supplement his knowledge by getting four people, as he instanced, to analyse the Bill for him and to come back with their conclusions. Each of them said it is a disaster. The Minister is hearing that very strongly and he should be very worried about it.

I raised a case on the Adjournment involving the parents of an autistic child who had been receiving remedial teaching, particularly the attention of a speech therapist, which stopped because of a change in the school or the retirement of this person. The parents had to watch in an agonised fashion as their child went backwards. The reply I got was a complete run-around referring to the health board, the hospital, the school, the Minister and the Department, but at the end of the day nothing was done. On that occasion the Minister explained one of the problems – to which Senator Gibbons referred – was the fact that provision of money alone was not enough as there were not sufficient people taking courses in the universities. There were insufficient graduates so the personnel simply was not there. From where will they come now? I do not believe they are there and the Minister is giving us an idle promise. This is wrong and unfair.

It is very significant and interesting that so many organisations, even in the limited time we have had to consider the Bill and to refer it to them, have come out and said clearly and unambiguously that they regard it as mistaken. When one looks at the Minister's speech, there is a very long preamble, which is some six or eight pages long, reciting the achievements of the Department of Education and Science during the Minister's term in office in increasing the number of support teachers and so on. I will not be mean spirited and I will acknowledge that there have been achievements in that area, but that does not justify the Bill. It does not provide any greater resources in the Bill and a recital of this kind of history is intended as a kind of cosmetic framework for what is being delivered in the legislation. That makes me suspicious and when I was reading the Minister's speech, I wondered why it was taking so long to come to the boil. It was obvious it was providing, in as far as it was possible, a kind of positive environment in which to give us what I can only regard as a kind of double sell because I do not see where any of these resources will be found.

Senator O'Toole made a devastating attack on the Bill and it was very useful and instructive to hear him. He listed the people involved in carrying out assessments – a psychologist, a medical practitioner, a teacher nominated by the principal of the school, a social worker and a therapist. He made an extremely effective point when he mentioned that there is no distinction drawn between a clinical psychologist and an educational psychologist. This is Dickensian stuff. It would do well in the context of Dotheboys Hall.

Section 10(2)(f) of the Bill regarding the content of the education plan refers to “the goals which the child is to achieve over a period not exceeding 12 months”. The only comment I will permit myself on that is what limited horizons. Section 10 also deals with the appointment of the council at the discretion of the Minister. Unfortunately, this will not work. Even in the Long Title of the Bill there is no mention of rights and I challenge the Minister on this as he raised the question of rights and accused Senator O'Toole of standing in the way of children's rights by opposing the Bill. There is not a word about it in the Long Title but one telling phrase that is included is “to the greatest extent practicable”. There is the Minister's let-out clause; the whole Bill is riddled with such clauses.

This Bill should be withdrawn if the Minister wants to limit his losses. There is no doubt in my mind that he is making significant political losses by the unwise and hasty introduction of this Bill and the attempt to ram through all remaining Stages tomorrow. A sign of that is the considered reservation on the Government benches. I am glad that the proceedings of this House are now being televised and recorded because if anybody in the future wants to learn about the quality of this debate and its emotional content, all they will have to do is watch the body language of the Government speakers, including the Minister. They are clearly embarrassed and they have every right to be.

Mr. Kett

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am privileged to have been part of the Government that has been responsible for an unprecedented level of services for people with disabilities and special education needs over the last five years. It is an unfortunate reality that this area has been neglected for many years and many Governments can hold their hands up on that account. There were other priorities and it is no wonder that parents found it necessary to take matters into their own hands, which in certain circumstances led them to the courts.

The problem that faced this Government when it came into office was a formidable one and many improvements were needed in the areas of disability and special needs education. There was a need to expand services and while there were areas in which developments had been set in train, there were others where nothing existed for the disabled. Therefore, I welcome this vital legislation which provides a statutory framework for those who educate people with special needs. It is right that meeting those needs is enforceable in law and this Bill targets a range of services which must be provided, including assessment and individual educational plans, along with support services to allow for mediation and appeal if these plans are not met.

The Bill recognises the key role of parents in the education of their children and section 1 defines the criteria whereby a child is recognised as having special needs. Section 2 provides for the integration of children with special needs and those without them in an overall educational plan, taking into account the needs of the children and the wishes of parents. Most importantly, the Bill removes any doubts about having to retain children in special classes or schools, a matter that has been a sticking point for teachers in the past. I remember many parents having nightmares about their children being in special schools and special classes when they felt that those children were quite capable of integrating with the mainstream.

I welcome the substantial resources the Government has provided in this area over the last five years. The programme for government was an ambitious one as it related to disability and the Minister and Deputy Martin before him are to be commended for their commitment to it. It is a job well done.

Those of us who work with the disabled accept that there is no magic wand for solving all the ills that need to be addressed, but the equality legislation that has passed through the House in the last five years, along with this Bill and the Disability Bill, will copperfasten the law in this area. The legislation will serve to increase the ability of children with special needs to educate themselves in the way that we all want them to. The days when a child registered in a special school could not be transferred to a school with an integrated approach are disappearing. That used to happen because the resources were not available. The parents and principals who managed in a few instances to get a child moved found that it led to the embarrassment of the child having to be looked after by their fellow pupils for toilet purposes and for their little comforts. That was appalling, but thankfully matters have improved considerably over the lifetime of this Government.

This Bill places parents at the centre of the child's education and that is right, but I caution against giving them the right to choose what happens entirely. Parents with handicapped children – in fact, any of us with children – want the best possible outcome for them. People who have disabled children have a special desire and focus in this regard and in wanting the very best for their child they are not always the most objective adjudicators when it comes to deciding what the child's needs are. They often put their child at a disadvantage by over-exaggerating their capabilities and by arguing with the powers that be about what the child's requirements are.

I recall an incident I was caught up in involving a young child, who had gone through the school system and an after school skill-based programme working on computers. She and her parents wanted her to be involved in the programme but, with the best will in the world, the child could not have worked on computers because she had poor hand movement. Having gone through the whole assessment process with psychologists, paramedics, therapists, the whole thing fell apart because the parents felt they were not getting a fair crack of the whip. I can understand that because parents want the best for their child and a parent with a handicapped child has a greater focus in that regard. The story gives a small insight into how a parent can react in certain circumstances. Senator O'Toole alluded to the fact that parents were the only people under the Bill who have the overall right to object and that is something that could be looked at.

There is a need to train teachers and other personnel working with people with disabilities. Ongoing resources are required to provide for pre-service and inservice training for special needs teachers and their assistants, irrespective of where their placements are. The teachers working in the special needs schools also need additional training to bring them up to speed with the new requirements being made of them through the introduction of the individualised programmes and the complex issue of integration.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for a register of all children with special needs, the idea being to identify them at an early stage in their development to ensure that their needs are met and, more importantly, to ensure that those needs are monitored. This is an excellent idea, which should have been implemented years ago, and it should not be introduced in the education system only. A register gives the opportunity to plan, apart from anything else, because through it we know what needs might or might not have to be met down the road.

Section 16 is also extremely important, setting out as it does the position of adults with disability. If the council considers that a person, on reaching 18 years of age, has not really got the best value from the education system, it can opt to provide for an additional year of education. This is very important. As someone who has served on the board of management of a special school, I know that one of the predominant requests being made by parents has been for an additional year for children who parents felt had not matured sufficiently. That was not possible because the resources were not there. The Department of Education and Science said that the school could provide it, but would get no money to do so and, consequently, it was not possible to provide the service.

The increasing availability of more meaningful programmes, training courses, employment support services, such as FÁS, and ongoing EU-funded schemes is a real source of comfort to parents. The fact that the ongoing capabilities and needs in this regard are now being pegged a year in advance of the child finishing school is also encouraging.

People referred to the use of technology. Technology plays a major role in children with disabilities accessing the curriculum. To date the technology has been made available to the school rather than to individual children. That practice should be examined. If one gives a piece of equipment to the child, the child will see it as his or her own special tool for learning. However, there appears to be a conflict between the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science as to which Department pays for it. The use of technology is a major issue for children in special schools and I urge the Minister to examine it. He should also look at the use of technology in State examinations. I welcome the Bill and wish it well.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister but not the Bill. It could be described as the "stop Kathy Sinnott and her ilk" Bill. It is extraordinary that it is produced just before the election.

I was at a meeting in London yesterday to discuss the problem of litigation relating to obstetrics and the high number of cases that are taken regarding cerebral palsy and other problems and disabilities in children which parents believe to be associated with birth injuries. The number of cases taken in this country is much higher than in the UK. One doctor said something very depressing, that it was only after she had visited Ireland and seen the standard of care we provide for people with disabilities that she began to understand why people took these cases. They were so desperate to do something for their child, they thought that if they could ascribe the condition to birth injury – perhaps they believed it was due to birth injury – and secure substantial funds as a result, they could do something for the child because so little is done.

The Minister has secured more funds for educationally deprived people but this Bill is not the solution to the problem of education for people with disabilities. I support Senator O'Toole's contribution. I did not see this Bill until 2.30 p.m. today. It was extremely difficult to go through such a long Bill. In fact, I do not know if it deals with behavioural disorders, which is one of the most difficult problems for the people who contact me about their children. Last week I voiced my gratitude to the Minister for including mental illness alongside mental disability in the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. However, there is so much in this Bill to be considered that I cannot see how it can possibly be done tomorrow, along with what else is planned.

I support Senator O'Toole's comments on this matter. I hope the Bill can be withdrawn so we can examine it more thoroughly. Let us hope we will be back in the House to do so at a future date.

Mr. Burke

I am disappointed with the treatment given to this Bill. There is great need for urgent legislation but the way this Bill has been treated leaves much to be desired. I am disappointed with the Minister. We received this Bill at 2.30 p.m. today. There has been no chance for the various organisations, who have made numerous representations over the years to Governments and Opposition spokespeople on disabilities, to put forward amendments or their side of the case.

The Bill is flawed. It does not contain a financial provision. I am disappointed that the Minister brought the Bill to the House without any financial considerations being put in place. Ultimately, the Minister for Education and Science will be at the mercy of the Minister for Finance because the Bill does not contain the financial provision it requires. I support the comments of other Senators in that regard.

Who will carry out the assessment of the students? That is an important consideration. I urge the Minister to reconsider the Bill, even at this late stage, or to give an indication that he will take corrective action by putting forward relevant amendments to ensure there will be financial provision and to guarantee that funding will be put in place to implement the Bill's provisions.

Minister for Education and Science (Dr. Woods)

I circulated the Bill last Friday in a White Paper. My difficulty was getting the Bill printed due to all the legislation being processed at present and the consequent pressure on the Bills Office.

I thought it was important to pursue this Bill because people have come to me, including some of the people mentioned in the debate today, and said that I am providing the resources. Nobody can deny that stepping from £7 million to £70 million per year is a huge quantum leap forward. That has never happened in our history. Yet, when we debate this issue, some Senators talk as if we are trying to cut resources. We are not doing that. We are providing virtually unlimited resources. I said as much earlier in my term of office and people laughed, but let them laugh now. When £7 million has been increased to £70 million in such a short time, it is not a laughing matter. It is a clear demonstration of commitment.

In October 1998 the Government made a formal decision for the first time, and I am not blaming previous Governments, that the needs of children in education with special needs were to be met and the money was to be provided to do that. When I was appointed to office at the beginning of 2000, I interpreted that decision literally. I outlined my interpretation and secured agreement on it. That is why I said, when I was under pressure from people who claimed we would not do various things, that the Government decision had virtually given me an open cheque book for assessed needs. That is the way it has been since then and that is how it will continue.

People now accept that this is happening. The number of classes for autistic children, with six children in each class, increased from five to 90. The number is now 98 and it continues to rise. I hear people say it will not happen and that people will not do it, but they are doing it. There was reluctance but there is no reluctance now. Some people will not do it, but there are always people who will not do everything. It is a big country with plenty of people and there will be some people who will not be anxious to do it. However, parents and teachers got together in the interests of the children and we now have 98 classes where previously there were five.

There is no question of somebody trying to pull a trick for an election. This work is already happening. I meet the people. I visit them and see what they are doing and how they are working. There is argument about the different systems and the training methods. Some people have a registered system and they believe it is the best system. However, the Department will not go entirely for a registered trademark system. It will go for the best systems. People can go their own way after that.

I accept the comments about training. There is a great deal of work to be done. It is a matter on which I am working. I will have a statement for the Senator very soon before the general election. I do not know when it will be held, but it will be some time in May. I just work on what has to be done. Notwithstanding the upcoming general election, I will put the matter on the table and if people do not like it, they will say so, but I will do my best to get it right. I will listen to what is said.

People asked, "If there is a change of Government and a change of Minister, how can we be sure that it will continue?" I said in response that I would include it in legislation and make it binding on any Government. I had to go through all of the process with my officials, with the task force carrying out extensive consultations on my behalf and putting together views, not just those of any one group but of people all over the country. My officials have had extensive consultation with those leading and organising groups. The proposals before the House arose from that process.

It is a statutory provision about which Senator Kett was quite correct. The Bill does provide a statutory framework. It also guarantees rights and will be enforceable in law. That is what all Governments in the past avoided. I had to go to Government eventually and get it to agree to more than the blank cheque which it gave me earlier, not for just anything but for assessed needs.

We had problems trying to get all the assessments done. They are ongoing. There were people saying they wanted an assessment, but they also wanted a plan. They did not want it to be just an assessment as a start. They wanted it to be continuous. Therefore, they wanted a plan. They were correct. I accept that is the way it should be.

I appreciate the points made by Senators. I am anxious to give that statutory right. I would like to have been here with the Bill sooner, but there were many issues which caused delay. Senators know what it is like getting legislation organised and through the office of the parliamentary counsel, etc. Last Friday I could not get the Bill printed by the Bills office, which was under too much pressure. Therefore, I printed a White Paper which we proof-read ourselves. That was referred to in the newspapers on Saturday and people commented on it. This morning the Bills Office gave it priority and had the Bill ready for us today.

Senators have made many points which I will consider. In addition to the task force, I must mention that from an organisational point of view there was the Cromien report which stated there should be a national council. We had it examined independently which report stated there should be a national council for special needs because somebody must be meeting these needs in a co-ordinated way on a national basis. It is not to exclude education or anything else, but to ensure there is a driving force to deliver on the report.

Everybody has read the Cromien report which we have discussed. It is not new. We also discussed the task force report. The Bill encapsulates both. In effect, the national council will become the framework through which this is driven. They will ensure it happens.

The other aspect of all this is that we provide a mediation and an appeals system. In addition, one can take the matter to court and insist on rights. Various people have been looking for this whole process, this statutory right and the right to take the matter to the courts. In this case, for primary school children one can go the whole way through. That is a statutory right. It is all in this legislation which Senators can reject. They can vote against it if they feel they want to do so.

People spoke mostly about resources. There is a section in the Bill which details the provision of resources. The Bill uses the words "the Minister shall". The Minister does not have an option. He or she must act in consultation with the Minister for Finance. Everything one does on that score is done in consultation, but the words used in the Bill are "the Minister shall". It does not state "the Minister may" or "the Minister for Finance may or may not," but that "the Minister shall," and he or she must do so. That is how a person, if he or she so wishes, can go right through the process all the way to court to insist on this right which is spelled out clearly. Any Minister in any Department must consult with the Department of Finance, but in the case of resources, the obligation is set out in the Bill and is a statutory requirement.

Senator O'Toole spoke about the need for resources. He said one could not do any of this until the necessary resources are in place and the people are prepared for it. All that must follow. We are already doing much of it. I stated the numbers in operation where services are being provided. All that must be discussed and the necessary resources must be provided, but I gave figures for the numbers of staff and assistants.

One of the big issues is the question of assistants. The number of assistants in classrooms has risen from 299 to over 3,000 in just two and a quarter years. I cannot do any more than this. I provided the resources which will continue to be provided. They are going in by the hundred at present.

Mr. O'Toole

Because the courts decided, as the Minister and I both know.

Dr. Woods

No. I know that the Senator has a particular view. As Minister, I am saying what I am doing. The courts do not decide for me. I am the Minister and bring legislation forward. I am providing the assistants, although there will be argument about how many there should be and about other matters. We are working out the systems which will be well worked out. Given a little time, I am quite confident that the support for children with a disability in Ireland will be as good, if not better, than that provided anywhere because that is the way it is going.

Senator O'Toole was very concerned about resources generally. Time and again he returned to the issue. I must point out to him that the resources for assessed needs will be provided under the direction of the national council. They must be provided and the Bill states the Minister shall provide them.

No doubt, as Senator Kett stated, one cannot do this overnight with a magic wand, but the one issue about which the vast majority who came to me were concerned was that the right would be set out and would not change in the future. Now that we have taken this quantum leap, I do not see it changing. I do not see it changing if there is another Government or Minister. However, as it could change, we are including it clearly in the legislation in order that people can work to it.

Senator O'Toole talked about schools' ability and problems with them etc., but the onus will be on the Minister and the Department to provide the necessary support for children in these cases. If a particular school cannot do it, it will have to find another way. They must also provide the resources and there will be an appeals system in place.

This is, in effect, a huge change. No doubt it will be an expensive one, but we have made the decision that we will go along this road. I said earlier that it follows the various decisions in the courts – I am not saying otherwise. I know people who have worked in this area for many years. I have collected money myself, as have other Senators and Deputies, and have done various things over the years. Of course many people have done much good work, but we now want to provide a first-class service to these children. That is expensive but it is being done.

One of the problems is that, because we have provided extra resource teachers, supports and assistants, schools which were doing fine otherwise now need extensions. Not only do we have to deal with all the schools that have problems from the past – there are many of these because a historical deficit has to be made up, and a lot of money is going towards this – but in addition, new facilities, resources and spaces are needed. It is a headache and a difficulty, but it is being dealt with. Much of the money I am spending on buildings is going towards extra resources for children with special needs.

Senator O'Toole spoke of the involvement in the board. As far as we are concerned, we will involve the education partners in the council and in its composition—

Mr. O'Toole

That is in the Bill.

Dr. Woods

It has taken place all the time in respect of every possible thing we do. Under the Cromien report, I am setting up the national council because that is part of the re-organisation and the arrangements. However, this will give it a statutory basis and authority. I can give it an administrative basis and administrative authority.

Both Senators O'Toole and Kett raised a question about the parent being the only person who can appeal. We will return to that on Committee Stage as we go through the sections. I have listened to what the Senators have had to say in that regard.

I regret that I could not have had the Bill available earlier or printed sooner. However, it is good legislation. It gives a statutory right for the first time. It puts an onus on the Minister of the day to provide the resources and it provides an appeal system where this is not done, right up to court level. It also provides a whole system. The obligations are on the national council. Section 19 sets out the requirements and says the council "shall" have the functions to establish and maintain the register and disseminate to schools and parents the information. It does not say that it "may" do so. There is a compulsion.

I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate. I thank Senator Kett, who is obviously close to the issue of special needs and who welcomed the provision of a statutory framework for the services and their provision as a right. Likewise, Senator Ormonde recognised that and welcomed it, for which I thank her. Senator Gibbons welcomed it and had some reservations and concerns. I hope that, by the time we are finished, his concerns will be met.

I cannot do a lot about the school transport system, which is a separate issue. Much has been developed and prepared in this regard. I accept the points made about a sort of bureaucracy in terms of the national council, but this legislation is to provide the underpinning for the delivery of all the services that will be provided and guaranteed.

A question was raised about speech therapists. I have recently authorised another 75 places at university for speech therapists. There is a deficit in this respect and there is not doubt it is a problem area. We have to find ways to get over the problems. The health boards have direct responsibility in providing the speech therapists but I am not passing the buck.

Educational psychologists are defined at the beginning. There were 44, but we have increased the number to 100. Interviews are taking place at the moment, which will bring it up to 160. The figure given as needed for the whole country, for all educational circumstances, was 200. Within a matter of weeks, we will be up to 160 and by the end of the year I will have approval to increase the number to 200, two years ahead of the arrangements under the national plan. The Government has agreed to advance it and it is now being addressed very urgently. The effects are beginning to be felt. Because the assessments are available, it will be possible to get the plans and do the other things which cannot be done until one has the staff. The staff numbers are now increasing substantially and we will have a good service in a relatively short time throughout the whole country.

The educational psychologists now come directly under the aegis of the Department and we have approval for that. Within a matter of weeks, when the appointments commission has finished its work, we will have another 60 educational psychologists, which will bring the figure up to approximately 160. We have permission to increase the number to 200 by the end of the year, which we will proceed to do.

I thank everybody for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Farrell, Willie.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.

Kiely, Rory.Leonard, Ann.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Cosgrave, Liam T.Henry, Mary.

Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Toole, Joe.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Farrell and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and O'Toole.

Question declared carried.