Before we deal with section 1, it would clarify matters for all of us in the House, because of the unusual way in which the Bill is being taken, if the Minister would tell us if he intends to bring it to the other House tomorrow and if he intends to have it completed before the end of this parliamentary session.
Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2002: Committee Stage.
I would like to have it completed before the end of this parliamentary session, but that will go on into April. I hope we will be able to complete it when we come back.
Will the Minister try to treat us seriously and not as if we were fools? Everybody knows that tomorrow will be the last effective day of this Dáil. Are we rushing this Bill through only to find that it will not be taken in the other House tomorrow or before the end of this session? If that is the case, I propose that the Minister withdraws the Bill at this stage so that consultations can take place rather than go through a charade. If the Minister is giving me his word that all Stages of the Bill will be taken in the other House tomorrow, then we can go ahead. If he is saying that the Bill will not be dealt with throughout the summer until after the election, surely the sensible thing to do, with goodwill all around, is to have the proper consultation we asked for last night, which has not taken place.
I cannot take Senator Manning's proposal now because Committee Stage has been ordered. However, if the Minister wishes to make a comment, he may do so.
I understand that it will—
The Minister knows full well.
—be in the other House tomorrow. What I said in the first instance was not frivolous or anything else. The House will adjourn tomorrow until 16 April or 17 April. The House may sit again at that stage. I do not know if it will or will not sit, but I want to get it through in this session if possible because if I do not, and the election takes place, it could be a year before it is finally completed. That is why I am anxious to provide these rights—
So it will be in the other House tomorrow.
That is my understanding.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 6 and 7, to delete "is unable to benefit from an ordinary school programme" and substitute "needs more than the ordinary school programme".
This amendment concerns the definition in section 1, the interpretation section of the Bill. It currently states:
"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;
In other words, we recognise, define or interpret the phrase "child with special educational needs" as one who is unable to benefit from an ordinary school programme. I have never seen that written before and it is not logical. I cannot imagine a child who could not get some benefit from an ordinary school programme, even if is only to identify black from white or how to sort something at its most basic level. No child would be unable to benefit from an ordinary school programme. It might be said that children who have severe or profound disabilities could not, but it is impossible to think that there would be no benefit whatever, in any shape or form, obtainable from the ordinary school programme.
My questioning of this definition is important because the definition would allow a future interpretation in the courts that would not take account of the special needs of a child. Somebody might say: "There is a child who could benefit in the sense that he has learned how to lift a spoon or has learned how to tie his shoelaces and therefore he has gained something from the ordinary school programme and could not be defined as a child with special educational needs." The definition approaches the problem in the wrong way. The Minister should look at the problem from the other side and take a different perspective. Rather than saying that a child with special educational needs is one who is unable to benefit from an ordinary school programme, he should refer to a child who "needs more than the ordinary school programme".
My proposal does not make any significant difference in terms of what the Minister said, but it will prevent a lawyer some time in the future from defining a child as not having special educational needs because he or she has managed to get some benefit, however slight, from some aspect of the ordinary school programme. It defeats the purpose of the Bill to leave the definition as it stands. In the interests of what we are trying to achieve in this legislation, I ask the Minister to concede to my argument and to agree to my amendment.
Will this definition include children with behavioural problems that might interfere with their ability to gain benefits from the ordinary school programme?
The Bill refers to the "ordinary school programme". It would be ascertained by assessment if a child was not capable of being contained in an ordinary school setting or pro gramme. If a child in an ordinary school programme is having assessments done by a team of specialists it indicates that the child is not capable of being contained in an ordinary school programme. Therefore, I understand why the definition is used. Senator O'Toole's amendment to substitute "needs more than the ordinary school programme" for "is unable to benefit from an ordinary school programme" would lead to the problem of defining what "more" means in this regard. I have difficulties with the amendment and I am interested in the Minister's views on the matter.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.