SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Monday, 5 Jan 2004

Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003: Committee Stage.

Chairman

This meeting of the select committee has been convened for the purpose of considering the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003. I welcome the Minister for Education and Science and his officials to the meeting.

The select committee will consider Committee Stage of this Bill today, on Wednesday, 7 January, and on Thursday, 8 January. With the agreement of members, the select committee will take a sos today from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. and conclude at 4.45 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed. The select committee will meet again on Wednesday, 7 January, commencing at 2 p.m. and it is proposed that there will be a sos from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., that the select committee will conclude at 7 p.m., that on Thursday, 8 January, we will begin at 10 a.m., take a sos from 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. and conclude at 3.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

SECTION 1.

Chairman

A list of amendments have been circulated. It has been brought to my attention that amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan would constitute a charge on the Exchequer and, as such, could be introduced only by the Minister or a member of the Government. Therefore, on foot of the relevant Standing Order, I must rule that amendment out of order.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 20 is related to amendment No. 2 and they may be taken together by agreement.

Ms Enright

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 38 to 40, to delete all words from and including "has" in line 38 down to and including "accordingly" in line 40 and substitute the following:

"requires support services additional to an ordinary educational programme and will include children where such requirements may be caused by a disability".

The purpose of this amendment is ensure the Bill is as broad as possible and all encompassing. We are dealing not only with children with disabilities but with children who for various reasons are not competing within the education system. That is the reasoning behind this amendment. We want to ensure gifted children are also included and not specifically only those children with a disability defined or not defined by the legislation.

Mr. Stanton

This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response. There is a reference to educational disability in the part of the section we propose be deleted. Many people who came before meetings of this committee, at which the Chairman was present, had difficulty with the term "educational disability". In particular, people with physical disabilities took umbrage at this definition. They would say they do not have an educational disability and that they can learn quite well. At one of the meetings somebody mentioned an eminent professor in England, Stephen Hawking, whom I do not think anybody could say has an educational disability.

What is proposed in the Bill focuses on disability and on the negative. In this amendment Deputy Enright and I propose to focus on the positive. During the Second Stage debate I said that we must focus on the needs of people, not on perceived disabilities they might have.

Support services are defined extremely well in the Education Act 1998. It refers to assessment of students, psychological services, guidance and counselling services, technical aid and equipment, provision for students learning through Irish sign language, speech therapy services, provision of early childhood, primary, post-primary, adult and continuing education, teacher welfare services, transport services, library and media services, school maintenance services, examinations provided for, curriculum support and staff advisory services and such other services as are specified by this Act or considered appropriate by the Minister. That is an extremely good definition of support services. It is already there. We should try to ensure that the legislation is compatible with existing good legislation. By proposing this amendment we hope to secure two objectives. First, we are linking the legislation with the Education Act and using the same support services definition, which is a good definition. We are also changing the underlying view in the legislation by turning it to the positive rather than the negative. We are removing the term "educational disability" and focusing on the child's needs rather than on the child's disability or what the child cannot do. In view of what the Minister has said since his appointment, it would be surprising if he disagrees with this.

The amendment links the two legislative measures so there is seamless legislation. It also focuses on the positive and on the needs of the children rather than the faults. Something else must be said at this stage. We should move away from the notion or cultural mindset that if somebody has a disability, it is, in a sense, their fault. One is reminded of the biblical phrase about the sins of the fathers. The fact that somebody needs a support because they have a disability seems to mean that there is something wrong with them.

The Minister should focus on examining what additional support services a person needs to reach his or her potential and providing those support services rather than looking at the impairment, a word that is still used in the Bill, the person has. I thought we had gone beyond using the words "impairment" and "handicap". Last year was the European Year of People with Disabilities, not the European Year of People with Impairments or the European Year of the Handicapped. The approach in the Bill should be positive and focus on the needs of the children. We should ensure this legislation is seamless when combined with the Education Act, which was an extremely good Act. I will await the Minister's response.

Ms O’Sullivan

I support the amendments and I agree with Deputy Stanton's point that this Bill needs to focus on the positive rather than the negative. All members in their Second Stage speeches pointed to the reference to failure in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill. It suggested that the child would have failed within the school system before he or she would get an assessment of need. This focuses on the negative rather than the positive. In this amendment, the Fine Gael Deputies are seeking to focus on the positive and on the extra needs of the child instead of the specific disability the child might have.

My amendment was disallowed because it would incur a charge on the Exchequer. However, I hope the Minister will consider it because he is free to act on it even if I am not free to move it. It links to the other point Deputy Stanton made. The Education Act 1998 uses the definition of a student which I suggest in my amendment. I was seeking to bring this Bill into line with the positive aspects of that Act. The 1998 Act was broader. The definition of a child in this legislation does not consider the older person who is still attending a school or an educational institution. The Bill purports to deal with the education of persons with disabilities, not just those under 18 years of age. I was attempting to ensure that people with disabilities who are older and still within the education system are also covered by the Bill. That might or might not involve a charge on the Exchequer.

If the Minister of the day saw fit to include the broader definition in the Education Act and if that Act and this legislation are supposed to work in tandem, it would make sense to include the broader definition in this Bill. We will have a greater opportunity to discuss the definition when we reach amendment No. 5 so I will not discuss the matter further. However, it is important from the beginning to put an emphasis on the positive. We want to talk about the ability of the student and the way in which the education system can support that student to reach the greatest level of achievement within that level of ability.

Mr. Gogarty

I wholeheartedly support the Fine Gael amendments. They impress on the Minister the need to accentuate the positive aspects and to recognise that disability is not necessarily a disability in the way one lives one's life but only a slight stumbling block, provided resources are made available. That is what this Bill fails to do. I support the amendments.

Mr. Crowe

I support the amendment. It is important to focus on the child and the individual rather than on a formulated plan. As the amendment suggests, there is a need for support services additional to those of an ordinary educational programme.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thank the Chairman of the committee for allowing me to attend this forum. I wish the committee, its staff and the Minister a happy new year. I strongly support the amendment. Many of the views I had hoped to voice have already been expressed. I am the parent of a child with a disability and other Members of the House have children with disabilities. We always talk about the positive aspects of our children. We saw the positive side of children with Down's syndrome, for example, during the Special Olympics. It is important that we reflect that and this amendment does that.

We must also deal with the reality that there are 21,000 children with disabilities in our primary schools at present. There are approximately 15,000 children with intellectual and other disabilities in the mainstream service and approximately 6,000 in the special school service. When one considers those figures, one can see the magnificent, positive input of those 21,000 children into their families, communities and into the education system. Look at the disability groups and consider the many active spokespersons, some of whom have disabilities. We should listen to their views when discussing this legislation. I urge everybody to support the amendment.

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N. Dempsey)

I wish the Chairman, the members and the staff of the committee a happy new year and I thank the committee for facilitating the discussion on this Bill.

I have no difficulty accepting the thrust of the committee members' remarks. A problem that I have found previously in discussing Bills on Committee Stage is that we take matters piecemeal, one by one, as we must in order to do it properly. Very often, however, we can get bogged down in definitions and other aspects of the Bill that are catered for later on because of the way in which legislation is drafted. The Bill focuses on the positive aspect of developing the child to his or her full potential; that is the whole purpose of this legislation. When we discuss subsequent sections we will see that the educational plans are geared to developing individual pupils to their full potential. I do not want people to get the impression from the initial sections that we are only talking about disabilities. The Bill is specifically geared for people with disabilities that affect their education. In some cases, we are talking about people who need extra assistance in the education system to develop them to their potential. We cannot get away from that fact. The Education Act deals very well with people who do not have disabilities. By common consent, this Bill has been deemed necessary by Members of the House, members of the Judiciary and others. Therefore, we are dealing with a specific area of education to try to improve what is available. We should keep that overall picture in mind. While Deputies say we should not focus on negative aspects, the Bill is geared to an area that we had not catered for that well up to the last three or four years. We are trying to deal with persons with specific disabilities or disadvantages within the system.

The amendment could be open to many interpretations. It refers to educational disadvantage, which can arise from diverse causes, only one of which is disability — the focus of the Bill. We are trying to address the issue of social disadvantage through a range of initiatives with which Deputies will be familiar, including Breaking the Cycle, the disadvantaged areas scheme and the home-school-community liaison scheme. We are also providing learning support and resource teachers, along with a range of other services to counteract educational disadvantage. We are trying to overcome difficulties and disadvantage while promoting greater social inclusion. This Bill, however, focuses on disability and provides a statutory guarantee of educational services for children with disability. The amendments would widen this to all areas of disadvantage which, I presume, would be the unintended outcome of accepting either amendment.

The definition of support services in the Bill is exactly the same as the definition in the Education Act, so there is a link between both which members are anxious to ensure. The Bill is specifically designed to cater for persons with disabilities and for that reason, I am not prepared to accept either amendment.

Mr. Stanton

We are discussing only amendments Nos. 2 and 20. We are aware of what is happening further on, even though we only received some of the Minister's amendments this morning. I do not accept that we cannot be more positive in our approach; we need to be far more positive. I agree with the Minister that the definition of support services is the same in this Bill as in the Education Act but that term is not used in this Bill at all. Further on, services and supports are referred to, but not support services as defined in the Education Act. That term is not used.

Mr. Dempsey

We can insert it later.

Mr. Stanton

That may be so but it is not there now. We saw that omission when we went through the text of the Bill. It is strange that the term "support services" is used in the definition but not further on. The words "services" and "supports" are used without definition. I take what the Minister is saying, however, that that will be rectified.

Does the Minister accept that we have to get away from the idea that it is the child's fault if he or she has a disability? We should focus more on the needs of the child rather than on the disability. We should focus on what supports a child needs in order to reach his or her potential.

The Bill defines a child with special educational needs as "a child who has an educational disability". That thinking is dated and we have gone beyond it. We should be referring to a child who has a special educational need and we should then meet that need. Let us not focus on the disability but on the need. We should focus on the positive rather than the negative. At this early stage in the debate — because we will return to this matter on Report Stage — the Minister has a chance to rectify that or at least to indicate that he is open to re-examining it. I would be happy if he would say so.

We are proposing that the section should state the child requires support services additional to an ordinary educational programme, and will include children where such requirements may be caused by disability. That refers to a child with special educational needs so we should focus on those needs rather than on the disability.

Ms Enright

I agree with what the Minister said in that we did not cater all that well for this section of the community in the past. This Bill provides us with a chance to rectify that, however, so we should not omit further groups now. The Minister may have taken me up wrongly. I was not trying to include disadvantage in the broader sense, including the social reasons for it. I was referring to children who are not competing or achieving by reason of a disability or a learning difficulty. That is the key point. The Bill as drafted will not cover that area sufficiently and that is why I am pressing the amendment.

I am concerned by the Minister's proposal to define specific disabilities by amendment. I welcome the fact that other matters can be added but I am concerned by the mechanism through which further disabilities may be added to the legislation in future. Who will have the responsibility for doing that?

Mr. Dempsey

I do not think we are at odds on this. To answer Deputy Stanton directly, I do not believe it is the child's fault if he or she has some disability. That notion rightly went out many years ago, and the Bill does not do anything other than accept that fact.

Talking about the positive aspects of it — again, I wish to be careful about not going too far ahead — if one looks at section 8(2)(a) and (f), they talk in terms of the child’s abilities and that under the education plan, we look at the nature and the degree of the child’s abilities, skills and talents, which is positive, and at the nature and degree of the child’s educational disability. We must do that to be able to assess how we can help the child. I am prepared to look at amendments Deputy Stanton has tabled regarding the use of the word “support” with services. Section 8(2)(f) talks in terms of support services. It is not a case of a definition of “support services” being included in the Bill but being forgotten later on.

There is no necessity for these amendments. The spirit of the amendment is contained in the Bill and for that reason I ask Deputies to withdraw their amendments. If they wish to re-enter them on Report Stage after we have gone through the Bill on Committee Stage and if they believe the purpose of their amendments has not been met, we will look at them at that stage.

Mr. Stanton

I wish to refer to what Dr. Connolly of the Psychological Society of Ireland said when he appeared before the committee last September. He said, "Nobody anywhere in the world takes an impairment based view of educational needs, expect this Bill". He went on to state

Needs-based definitions are required. The needs of the individual are specified and that is what the programme funded by the Department in Lucan currently does.

This is not a needs based definition. Mr. Connolly stated that this is not done anywhere in the world and that elsewhere they have moved beyond this. This gentleman is the leading expert in psychology. If the Minister gives a commitment to look at this again, we will not press the amendment; otherwise we will do so.

Mr. F. McGrath

I take the point made by Deputy Stanton about pressing the amendment. The Minister said there is a sense of agreement between the different views and he maintains our views are reflected in the Bill. I do not mind who tables the amendments as long as this Bill has teeth and guarantees rights to services for children with disabilities. That is the issue as far as I am concerned. I urge the Minister to be open. I hope he has listened to groups such as the INTO, Down's Syndrome Ireland, NAMHI and the Irish Autism Alliance which have a vested interest, represent the views of parents and have made submissions. The Minister mentioned section 8 which refers to the nature and degree of the child's abilities, skills and talents and the nature and degree of his or her educational disability. It also refers to the present level of educational performance where it is relevant to the child's special educational needs and the services to be provided. The most important thing is to provide services to the children and their families. Let us have a Bill with teeth.

Mr. Dempsey

I listened to what Deputy Stanton said and I am prepared to look at this but Deputies should remember needs are catered for under section 8. One establishes the person's abilities and disabilities and how they affect their educational performance. One provides the services to help develop the person to reach their full potential. That meets needs which are there. If we try to include a definition of needs in the Bill, we will face serious difficulties because a person's needs will change and we will have to introduce primary legislation each time a new need arises.

Having listened to what has been said, I will consider this further. Deputy Stanton indicated that, on that basis, he will withdraw the amendment until Report Stage. I will look at this in the meantime but if we go into a definition of needs in the Bill, we will probably have a document as long as the Bill itself setting out needs. I will consider this further for Report Stage.

Mr. Stanton

The Minister said he will look at this again. When we go through the definitions in the Bill he might see the light and change his mind. We will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment Nos. 3, 4, 12, 19 and 22 are cognate and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Enright

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, subsection (1), line 39, to delete "construed" and substitute "read".

These are technical amendments. The Law Reform Commission in its report on drafting called for greater use of plain language, which I support. On Committee Stage of the Interpretation Bill, the Minister moved that all instances of the word "construed" be deleted and that the word "read" be inserted instead. I presume that was done to reflect the new style being adopted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Bill is consistent with that style, which I presume is Government style.

Mr. Stanton

I agree with Deputy Enright. Much of our legislation is hard for ordinary people to understand and to read. I know we need a certain amount of legalese but I agree that where possible, we should use language which is user friendly and easy to understand. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey

I am all for making language as simple and as straightforward as possible consistent with it being precise legally because I do want people to spend their time at the Four Courts. In view of what the Deputies have said, I will raise this matter again with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and will come back to them on Report Stage. If the word can be changed, I will have no difficulty changing it to make it more simple.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, and amendment No. 10 are alternatives to amendment No. 5 and amendments Nos. 9 and 429 are related to amendment No. 5. All may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Enright

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

"'disability' has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 1998;".

This amendment brings us to the kernel of the issue and somewhat overlaps areas we have already discussed. We tabled this amendment to ensure consistency. The definition of "disability" in the Education Act 1998 is one with which the majority of the groups who appeared before the committee agreed. Some groups had other definitions but if we start to go into other definitions, we would spend the three days discussing them. The definition in the Education Act 1998 is the one with which we should go. It is outlined in Deputy Gogarty's amendment No. 7. One of the most unusual provisions in the Bill, which I ask the Minister to explain, is why he went with the definitionin the Bill rather than the previous definition. I am concerned about the departure from what was in the Education Act 1998, the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act. We need to be consistent and coherent and to follow a clear model so that people know what we are talking about and what we mean by disability. The definition should not change from one Act to another. Disability does not change and the definition should not either.

This problem particularly affects groups, such as the Dyslexia Association, which deal with a specific learning disability independent of intellectual or physical ability. The definition as given would not include them. I welcome amendment No. 429 and the fact that the Minister has moved some way. However, the definition in the 1998 Education Act would be preferable and I ask the Minister to take that approach and to accept that definition so that all Acts are consistent.

Mr. Stanton

I cannot understand what the Minister is doing here. This is the heart of the Bill. In the beginning there was an impairment model of disability where a person was seen to have an impairment or to have something wrong with him or her. The person was seen to be in the wrong and his or her disability was seen to be his or her own fault. That was the thinking in the past. People with all kinds of disabilities were locked up because others did not understand their disabilities, did not want to understand them or did not want to provide the necessary supports. This was the impairment model.

We then moved to a social construct model. Most Governments and Departments are at that stage now. We look at the environment in which we operate, ask if something in the environment is restricting our potential and, if it is, try to remove it or provide a support to overcome the problem to the best of our potential.

In the United Nations and elsewhere the thinking has gone beyond that again and we are now talking about a human rights model. It is a human right of all people to have supports and services. The Minister, in his definition of disability says, "disability means, in relation to a person, a restriction in the capacity of the person to participate in and benefit from education on account of an enduring physical impairment, sensory impairment, mental health impairment or intellectual impairment". He does not speak of a restriction in the school or in society but in the person. The Minister is saying the person is impaired. I am amazed at this. We are going backwards. The Minister adds, "any impairment of the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time". We should be focusing on needs and on the support services required and not on the impairment of the person. The Minister's view is totally wrong. He is not looking at the social construct or the human rights model. He is going backwards.

The amendments ask the Minister to look at the definition in the 1998 Act. That definition does not blame the person with the disability in any way. The Act could probably be better in places but it is pretty good. It is objective and factual. Not only has the Minister decided not to include the 1998 definition in the Bill but he intends to change the definition in the 1998 Act, which was fairly enlightened in this regard. The Minister intends to insert in the 1998 Act a definition which is impairment based. I wonder if he is really listening to what people are saying and to what is going on in Ireland, Europe and the world. At the United Nations an attempt is being made to establish a convention on the rights of people with disabilities. If the Minister proceeds with this section he will do damage, not only in changing the Act of 1998 but in changing the thinking and philosophy which underpin the way we look at disabilities and the needs of people with disabilities, particularly in our schools.

I appeal to the Minister not to change the 1998 Act which would be a retrograde step but to incorporate that definition into this Bill, as has been proposed by Fine Gael and other Opposition Members. These amendments are crucial.

The Minister's definition speaks of "an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment, including any impairment of the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time". What does "enduring" mean? Who defines it? Is a disability which a person has for a short period of time enduring? The Minister's definition makes no mention of emotions. Can someone have an intellectual impairment? Can the Minister tell us what that is? Who draws the line? Who says a person has an intellectual impairment? Where is it defined? Are there psychologists who write down, "This child has an intellectual impairment"? The Psychological Society of Ireland is very unhappy with the term. Can the Minister tell us what he means by mental health impairment or physical impairment? During the debate on Second Stage I tried to convince the Minister that the word "impairment" should not used in this context. I wait to see what he says.

Mr. Crowe

The definition of disability was raised at every meeting with non-governmental organisations, trade unions, parents' groups and others who came to discuss this legislation. There is huge concern that the legislation will exclude certain sections of the disabled community. Previous speakers mentioned attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is a neuro-psychiatric disorder and one of the most common disabilities in schools today affecting between 3.5% and 5% of children.

If we do not get this definition right the Bill itself will fall. We all accept that the legislation is useful but if we exclude people before it is even agreed the Bill will fall. The Minister's definition does not include people with dyslexia or dysphraxia, which is a difficulty with thinking out, planning and carrying out sensory and motor tasks. It excludes a host of other visual and auditory problems. If we do not include these people the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on and the time and effort of the many individuals and groups who came to meetings of Oireachtas committees will have been wasted.

I share Deputy Stanton's concern regarding impairment, what it means and by whom it will be prescribed. I am also concerned that the definition used in this legislation differs from that in the Education Act 1998. A person defined as suffering disability under that Act is not covered by this legislation. The groups who made presentations to the joint committee spoke of the need for consistency in the area of disability under the Equal Status Act 2000 and the Employment Act and so on. They expressed a need for commonality and consistency across the board. The road advocated by the Minister creates a whole new definition.

What is the process for having an impairment prescribed? For example, to have dyslexia prescribed, would the Dyslexia Association of Ireland have to apply to the Department or the council? How would such a system work in practice? I ask the Minister to withdraw this amendment. The cut-off point of 18 years is extremely arbitrary and is counter to the best interests of children. Some of the parents who attended the joint committee spoke of children with severe, profound disabilities. How will this legislation affect such people as the 18 year old who has the mental age of an eight year old? Where once we adhered to the medical model and people received coverage all year round, we are now applying a certain time limit, such as during the school year. Again parents and students are losing out.

This is a key area of this legislation. I do not believe the Minister's amendment addresses this area. The Bill as currently drafted does not cover or include all those with disabilities.

Mr. Gogarty

It is unfortunate for me, as a new Deputy, to learn that amendments which might make a difference are prohibited in terms of their impact on the Exchequer. It is with regret that I could not table many of the amendments I would like to have tabled.

This amendment deals with the definition of disability, the crux of the Bill and how it impacts on the persons affected. Without proper definition one will face more court cases, a burden we do not wish to place on the Exchequer. I decided to be a little specific in tabling my amendment because it is important to spell things out. I do not wish to by cynical about this and perhaps the Minister will provide some clarification on my next point. The use of the words "intellectual impairment" could be a case of trying not to refer to the word disability twice in one paragraph. I hope it is as simple as that and that the matter can be rectified by simply putting the word "disability" back in. The use of the word "enduring", as Deputy Stanton pointed out, is open to an interpretation that is not specified.

I was a little strong during our joint committee discussion on this matter in suggesting that educational psychologists were prostituting their profession by agreeing to departmental——

Chairman

The Deputy's remarks are out of order.

Mr. Gogarty

Educational psychologists are putting their professional integrity on the line when adhering to guidelines set by the Department of Education and Science in terms of the number of hours required. I suggest the words "enduring impairment" could become a departmental specification without the remit of legislation which could be open to court action. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter or to give a credible argument in favour of using "enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment" or bow to Opposition — and possibly Government Members — suggestions in this regard. Whatever the flaws of the 1998 Act, the best definition without listing all ailments — I know all groups have called for various disabilities to be specifically listed but in trying to do so one might omit one or two — is to use the word "disability". Subsections (d) states:

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or;

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgements, or which results in disturbed behaviour;

I put it to the Minister that the 1998 Act contains a broad and specific interpretation of disability. If one describes educational disability as a restriction in the capacity of the child to participate in and benefit from education on account of his or her disability, that will cover every child. While in itself it will not guarantee a rights based approach — we can argue for it but cannot table amendments in that regard — this definition would go some way to ensuring that the rights and needs of persons with educational disabilities whose education is affected by a range of disabilities would be covered.

Ms O’Sullivan

I presume I will have a chance to press my amendments when we reach them.

Chairman

Yes.

Ms O’Sullivan

I have taken a slightly different approach to this but I have the same intention as other members of the Opposition. If we enact this legislation without being certain that we are including learning conditions such as ADD, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia we will have a narrow Bill which will cover only a narrow focused definition of educational disability. It is vital we include a broader definition and I am not hung up on how we do so.

There are problems with the definition in the 1998 Act but at least that definition includes learning disabilities in subsection (d). If that is how such conditions are to be included, so be it. I chose to take a different route to provide the words “or a learning disability” which would include such conditions as dyslexia and so on. I also proposed the deletion of the words “an enduring”. I am not aware of any reason this legislation should cover only enduring disabilities. There must be young people who, with intensive attention, can overcome their disability. If we do not believe a person can overcome his or her difficulties then we have a negative view of learning and of the kind of problems facing young people. I strongly believe the word “enduring” should be omitted from the definition. There must be space for young people whose learning difficulties are not enduring but which cause him or her severe difficulty. It is vital such children get the required intervention when it is needed and that they are provided with an assessment of need and a learning plan.

I ask the Minister to explain why he has included the word "enduring" in the definition. The intention to include children with learning disabilities was included in the education for persons with disabilities Bill published in 2002. That Bill used the definitions contained in the 1998 Act. There obviously has been a change of heart in terms of how broad the legislation will be and what conditions it will cover. On Second Stage, the Minister stated — I presume he will say the same today — that amendment No. 9 affords him the opportunity to include learning impairments. The phrasing used is, "as may be prescribed from time to time". I want learning difficulties or disabilities included in the legislation from the beginning so we will be absolutely clear that children with dyslexia, ADD or the other conditions will be included and have their needs assessed and met. If we leave such children out and say a child with dyslexia, ADD or another condition does not have the right to have his or her needs assessed and to have the services and supports that would follow on from such an assessment, we are saying to the child that his or her condition will not be addressed in the same comprehensive way as other educational disabilities. We are storing up a lot of trouble for children with conditions that can be addressed. We know early intervention is vital if they are to receive the proper attention they require for their specific needs. It would allow the children in question to participate much more effectively in the education system and would mean that they would be much more likely to have a fulfilling life and participate in society in a meaningful way.

None of us would deny that the Minister is concerned that young people get what they can from the education system. However, by restricting the definition in the manner proposed he is denying many children with learning disabilities the opportunities that exist under the legislation for other children. I urge him to accept one of the amendments that propose a broadening of the definition. Alternatively, it would be acceptable to us if he proposed his own wording ensuring that children with the aforementioned conditions are included. The wording as it stands is not acceptable to me and does not indicate clearly that the conditions will be included in the legislation.

Mr. F. McGrath

I strongly support amendment No. 5. The definition must be inclusive. No child with a disability should be left out because of the legislation we introduce. It is also important to realise, in the context of education services, that all children have the potential and ability to learn. From my having been active in the Down's Syndrome Association for ten years, I know that teachers stated 20 years ago that children with Down's syndrome would never be able to read. However, today some children with Down's syndrome are very good readers. They are learning through IT. Radical new approaches have been adopted and children are learning in different ways. It is important that we acknowledge this.

Let us consider the definition of educational disability and inclusion. We talk constantly of social inclusion in society, but we are constantly leaving people out as well. A recent case in which I and the Minister were involved concerned a child with autism receiving a service at home for only a couple of hours per week. There was no service for the child in the primary education system and when I asked the Minister about it, he said the child was receiving a couple of hours per week of service in a home environment. I would not accept this for my child. We must develop the services to suit the children.

The definition of educational disability in the Bill is "an enduring physical, sensory, mental, health or intellectual impairment". As others have stated, dyslexia is not a physical, sensory, mental, health or intellectual impairment. It is a specific learning disability independent of intellectual or physical ability. The Education Act 1998 states that an educational disability is a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction. This definition adequately covers the condition of dyslexia and I see no reason why this wording could not be used in the Bill. I urge the Minister to go a step further and, as I stated, provide a definition that is inclusive of all children with disabilities. I also urge him to challenge the view outlined by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform before Christmas regarding Bills with rights for children and adults with disabilities. The Minister should ignore this kind of advice and give our children rights and services. If he does so, society will support him.

Mr. Dennehy

The greatest problems encountered continuously by those of us who have acted as advocates in the health care area over the years are centred on prescribed lists and narrow definitions. Invariably, when we made a case for something, we were told it was not included in a particular list. This taught me to try to ensure that broad definitions be included, regardless of the issue involved.

Many have stated that dyspraxia should be included on a prescribed list. However, if the Bill had been passed two years ago it would not have been included because people were not aware of the condition. Therefore, I am worried that if we have a prescribed list, new conditions will be discovered that will not be included. I believe the Minister intends to introduce an amendment to address this. It is important that we build flexibility into the legislation to cope with new conditions that arise.

Everybody present has found himself or herself up against a wall in this regard, not just on the education side but also in the health care side. Rather than listing conditions to be included in the Bill, I would prefer a definition that would state that assistance would be available to a person if needed. This is in direct contradiction of Deputy Stanton's argument for a very tight definition. It is a question of assessing the needs of individual children. If they are determined to have certain educational needs, they should receive the educational assistance they require, regardless of the prescribed list. People will argue about how many hours of assistance should be afforded to them but this is a separate issue. We must start by acknowledging that if a need exists it should be met.

I am very concerned about some of the amendments that have been tabled. They are far too restrictive and narrow. I am speaking from the experience of being up against officialdom time and again.

Mr. F. McGrath

Does the Deputy reject the Education Act?

Mr. Dennehy

I would like the definition to be amended and I am concerned about some of the comments that were made.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I thank my colleague and the Opposition members for the views they have expressed on this matter. It is only natural that Opposition members are basing their comments largely on the discussions that took place in committee before Christmas. A large number of groups made presentations and we found the discussions that followed very useful. They clarified some issues for us. Since then, we have had further discussions with various groups. While I will not claim that the amendments tabled are perfect — I do not know if we can ever achieve perfection in this regard — they are an improvement. I do not claim to speak for any of the groups concerned, but the approach we are now proposing has found more favour than disfavour among them. I accept that these amendments were only published just before Christmas. Perhaps members opposite have not had the opportunity to discuss their effects with the groups concerned. I want the broadest possible definition to be contained within the Bill to assist those with an educational disability in ensuring their needs are met. This is the aim of all members and I accept everyone's bona fides on this. It is what we are trying to achieve and while it may not be perfect, we have advanced considerably.

A number of Deputies have raised the Education Act 1998 to the status of a Holy Grail. The definition of disability was one of the major areas of dispute in that Act and suffered downright condemnation. I ask members to remember this. We are trying to move on from that definition as it caused blue murder when it was inserted in the 2002 Bill.

Ms O’Sullivan

The Minister has taken out some of the good bits of that Bill and inserted others that are worse.

Mr. N. Dempsey

People were totally against using this definition, as it did not cover everything. Opposition Members said it should go, yet Deputy Stanton made a strong plea for including it in the Bill. He said that it should not be impairment orientated and should focus more on the potential of the children. While I agree with the Deputy, if one looks at the definition in the 1998 Act, it is almost entirely medically orientated. It states:

"disability" means—

(a) the total or partial loss of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the loss of a part of the person’s body, or

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness, or

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body, or

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour.

Most of this is medically orientated and is something with which everyone in the House disagreed. It concentrates more on the effect of the disability than its cause and in view of this, it is more appropriate that we take the route proposed in the Bill.

The definition of educational disability in the Bill is similar to the definition of disability contained in the National Disability Authority Act, which was enacted subsequent to the Education Act. While not purporting to speak for many of the voluntary organisations with which we consulted, they are happier with this definition than that contained in the Education Act.

Mr. F. McGrath

Some groups feel excluded.

Mr. N. Dempsey

While I am not saying that everyone is absolutely in agreement with this, some groups are relatively happy with it. It would be fair to say that while many groups would not see this as being perfect, they would see it as an improvement. If someone can suggest a perfect definition on Report Stage I will be prepared to discuss it.

A number of Deputies have asked what we mean by "enduring" and some have suggested we should get rid of it. It is extremely important that we retain "enduring" as it would be inappropriate that transient or temporary conditions, such as a short-term illness, would be covered by this legislation. The home tuition service caters for children with short-term illnesses. This Bill aims to cover children with disabilities that affect their learning. As I have said in the past, children with certain conditions, including dyslexia, will not be denied the right to receive an assessment and an individual education plan when it is necessary to meet their needs. The Bill covers this and it has been everyone's intention that it should do so. My officials have had meetings with a number of bodies, including the Dyslexia Association and the HADD family support group, and they made the point that in its current form, the definition does not cover all disabilities. I have accepted the need to change the definition in both the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill and the Education Act. We are changing the Education Act under the amendments I have proposed to ensure that all disabilities are included in both Acts.

Without purporting to speak for the representative groups, they accept, as Deputy Dennehy has outlined, that the naming of individual disabilities in legislation would be undesirable. Amendments Nos. 9 and 429 have been proposed to enable the Minister to prescribe particular conditions and regulations as coming within the scope of the definition. Members will see that the definition in amendment No. 429 covers many points that have been raised on disabilities and the effect they have on learning. Deputy Dennehy correctly pointed out that conditions that are as yet unrecognised could be accommodated, even if they do not obviously fall into the physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment definitions contained in the Bill. The amendments go some of the way towards meeting the concerns Deputies have expressed. I fully accept that these relate to ensuring the widest possible definition and that people with disabilities are catered for in the legislation.

If the definition is so wide that practically every student qualifies, then a great disservice would be done to students with real special needs. There are students with educational disabilities who can be dealt with by resource or learning support teachers. If so many classes of people and definitions are contained in legislation to the effect that practically everyone is included, then the service that can be provided to children with special needs will be diluted.

With regard to the question of the definition, the use of the word "impairment" and who can say a person has an impairment, I prefer to use the word "impairment" rather than "malfunction", as is advocated by some people. The Bill is aimed at children who learn differently from other children or cannot access education for particular reasons because of certain characteristics — physical, mental or otherwise. The nature of those characteristics, which we are calling impairments, because in some senses they disable the child in some way from learning, have to be determined by professional assessment. There is no other way in which to do that and that is how it will be done. This is provided for in sections 4 and 5.

Like any other legislation, the Bill is not perfect, although we will try to perfect it on Committee and Report Stages. However, if Deputies examine the amendments I am tabling and their effect, the changes made to the Education Act are a major improvement. The move to prescribe and have the ability to prescribe particular conditions in regulations is an improvement and makes the legislation more flexible. If we start to insert definitions and particular conditions into the Bill, which is not favoured by most of the groups, we will end up having to pass primary legislation through the Houses to add on extra conditions or disabilities which may arise. The amendments I have tabled are an improvement. If, between now and Report Stage, members feel they can come up with further improvements I will examine them. In the meantime I ask members to accept these amendments.

Ms Enright

I have listened carefully to the Minister. There is no perfect definition and there will always be difficulties in that regard. However, the amendment tabled by the Minister is not better than what stands in the Education Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2000, which is not referred to in the Minister's amendment.

The Minister referred to the 1998 definition but I draw his attention to paragraphs (d) and (e), which offer a broader scope than his own definition. Paragraph (d) deals with a learning difficulty, which the Minister has to some extent dealt with in his amendment. However, paragraph (e) broadens it further by dealing with any “condition”, which is broad, whereas the term “illness or disease” is far more medically-oriented than the word “condition”. I accept that the Minister does not want to be constrained by medical definitions. “Affecting a person’s thought process, perception of reality, emotions or judgments or which results in disturbed behaviour” is the type of phrase we need to include to ensure that the legislation is as broad as possible. It is a better definition.

The definition of "educational disability" refers to "an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment". However, the Minister sees no need for any of those to be prescribed from time to time, even though amendment No. 9 in his name provides that the word "impairment" may include "any impairment in the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time". I do not see why more types of intellectual impairment may not evolve in the future, in the same way as there may be conditions in regard to the capacity to learn. Therefore, other than the obvious reason, I do not see why the Minister is being prescriptive in regard to the capacity to learn when he is not in regard to other impairments.

I agree with Deputy Dennehy in regard to the use of prescription and prescribed lists. We do not want that and I do not support it. However, we should include the capacity to learn. If we are to be defeated on this issue, the capacity to learn should not be subject to prescription in a different way to physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment, rather, it should be inserted as a fifth condition in that category.

The Minister said that a number of members, not including myself, asked what he meant by the word "enduring" but he did not elaborate. The Bill deals with education for people with special needs in the future. The Minister referred to the home tuition service and other similar services being available to people but the reality is that in next November's Estimate, he could decide he does not want the service to be continued and have it cancelled. We cannot make legislation dependent on services like this being provided indefinitely into the future when the power to provide them rests with the Minister rather than us. We must ensure that the legislation is not dependent on these factors but that it offers the best services that can be provided. Therefore, using terms such as "enduring" does not make it any easier for us to accept other alternatives.

If the word "enduring" is to be used, we need to know exactly what the Minister means by it. For example, in two year's time he could issue a circular telling officials that "enduring" now means a condition lasting two or three years. I disagree with the Minister on this aspect. If a person has a disability for a short period of time, whether it be for six months or a year, it will create a changed educational need for that person which must still be met under the Bill.

Ms O’Sullivan

I thank the Minister for his reply. While I agree that the definition in the 1998 Act is somewhat offensive and I am unhappy with much of the language, which is why I did not consider it appropriate to use it as an amendment, its virtue, and the reason many people wished us to include it, is that it is much more inclusive than the Minister's proposal. I chose instead to modify the Minister's own definition and I ask him to examine this possibility. If the Minister's proposed amendment No. 9 stopped after the word "learn", it might meet with some of what we want to achieve. If it stated "...including any impairment of the capacity to learn.", it would include conditions such as dyslexia, which would not mean that they would have to be specifically prescribed in the Bill. This would also include ADD and ADHD which, although they are behavioural difficulties, impair the capacity of the child to learn.

If the Minister was willing to include that definition without maintaining the right of the Minister of the day to have to prescribe what are those conditions, it would meet with one aspect of our concerns, which is that the definition should be broad enough to include these types of conditions. Will the Minister respond to this point? It is in some ways similar to amendment No. 10 in my name. I have no problem using the Minister's own language if we can achieve what we want to.

While the Minister has stated that he intends to include these conditions, that is all very well now but it does not deal with the implications of departmental circulars. For example, recent circulars set out the terms under which psychologists must operate. They are told that a person can only need three or four hours of special attention. It is not for the educational psychologist to decide how many hours are required, rather it is in the circular, which must be adhered to. Therefore, we and people who represent children with learning difficulties have a genuine fear that while the Minister's intention may be to include them, departmental circulars may exclude them, with the result that those at the coal face who are interpreting the legislation will also exclude them.

I ask the Minister to consider including a general phrase such as "impairment of the capacity to learn", set out in his amendment No. 9, without having to prescribe it specifically. Does this include, for example, a child with a speech impairment which is not very severe but requires speech therapy for a period and a follow-up, even though the condition did not endure for long, after which the child improves to the point of attending regular classes full-time without extra help? This is the problem with the definition. The word "enduring" suggests a long time and longer than two or three years. It is understandable that the Minister does not want to go through the process of assessment of needs and so on in the case of someone who has a problem for one month. However, we need a better word than "enduring" to include the example I gave. I am sure everyone present can think of others.

Mr. Gogarty

The Minister was very specific in saying that the definition of impairment would be a medical one that would require expert interpretation, yet he criticised the definition in the 1998 Act for being too medical. It is an imperfect definition but, in the context of what we are trying to achieve, the many submissions from different groups and their inherent disagreements, it will not be possible to get every group representing various disabilities to agree on everything.

The definition in the 1998 Act, however medical and clinical it appears to be, cover as many disabilities as one could possibly want to interpret. If the Minister is concerned to ensure that every learning disability is included, instead of including amendment No. 429 and changing the definition within the 1998 Act, he should retain the definition in that Act. This must be medical because the people carrying out the assessments are medical professionals.

Recognition that someone suffers from a disability does not have to be medical but one must be clinical in assessing the exact nature of the disability. In his amendment to section 9, the Minister might add "including any impairment of the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time" to the 1998 Act which would be a double guarantee. Subsections (d) and (e) in the 1998 Act, as I and others have said, cover almost every possible disability within that definition. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity in this If he were to add the wording I have suggested, he could prescribe specific other disabilities as well and could do so when doubt arises. That would be clearer than the existing definition in the Bill which has generated discussion of the word “enduring”.

The educational guidelines which recommend that a second opinion of an assessment of a child requiring maybe six or seven hours be cut down in the departmental interpretation to four is selling the profession short and does not help educational psychologists. To ensure a more honest appraisal of a person's needs, given the resourcing problems that have arisen in the Department of Education and Science and will arise again, the Minister should adhere strictly to the definitions of the 1998 Act because, once a definition is enshrined in legislation, it is harder to contradict by means of a ministerial edict. Subsequent Ministers might take a harsher line to this Minister's and have the power to do so. Therefore, if the Minister puts enough locks into the legislation to ensure that every educational disability is covered, he protects himself against future challenges.

Rather than change the 1998 Act in accordance with amendment No. 429, the Minister could add to it by allowing himself to prescribe at any time. That would remove queries and quibbles arising in future, such as the definition of "enduring" or, in some cases, of "impairment". It would also reduce the possibility of court challenges in future under the 1998 definition.

Mr. Stanton

I listened to the Minister and recognise that he has moved some way in the right direction by adding the extra sentence "including any impairment of the capacity to learn". I know that Deputy Dennehy was trying to be helpful but I did not advocate the use of prescribed lists. I agree with the Deputy that this is not the way to go.

We need to focus on needs more than disability. That is why I am concerned about the Minister's direction and his focus on impairment rather than needs. I urge him to consider the current writing and thinking in this area which shows that the word "impairment" should not be used in this context. I agree that the definition in the Education Act 1998 was not perfect but at least it was objective and descriptive. Perhaps if the Minister were to examine that definition and update it, there would be a significant improvement. He could include it in the Bill.

We need people who will write their reports about children in a positive way, saying for example that the child, or person needs to have certain supports to benefit from education rather than saying the child is impaired. I do not want to see reports stating that a child is intellectually impaired. That is a negative label to give a child when one could say that he or she has a need for certain services. That is the difference between the Minister's proposal and what we are trying to articulate.

Like many of us, the Minister was a teacher. If we could shift our thinking to focus on the child's needs, then a teacher would recognise that a child has a need and would use that language when asking the principal for help or support for the child, instead of saying that the child is intellectually impaired. In this way we would change the culture, thinking and approach to this issue.

A specific need might be caused by a disability which is objectively described and could be different. Then the special needs organisers and so on will carry out an assessment of the child's needs so that he or she can participate positively. We stress the need and the positive rather than the impairment and the negative as the Minister proposes. If we can agree to examine this again on Report Stage with this in mind, we would make a massive leap forward in our thinking. We must also bear in mind that there is another Bill where this will need to be focused on. That is why we advocate not using the word "impairment" in the Bill and toning down the word "disability". We have proposed changing the title of the Bill to focus on more positive aspects.

In the past, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has been courageous, adventurous and progressive in drafting legislation. However, in this Bill it appears he is more regressive by using the word "impairment" when everyone claims it should not be used. I know the Minister means well but he should reconsider this term. I am not trying to score political points. As a nation we need to begin to be more positive in our outlook on this matter. As the Minister knows, language is so crucial and important that it must be used properly. When we use the term "impairment" in the Bill, we are regressing. Will the Minister consider the use of the term?

Mr. F. McGrath

Deputy O'Sullivan hit the nail on the head when she used the word "fear" because this is the bottom line from a parent's perspective. The parents of children with disabilities are concerned that they will be excluded or will not receive the adequate amount of teaching time. This is an important word and I am concerned by the Government's response. There should be no hedging about the reality that this Bill will cost the taxpayer money. We should not be intimidated by right-wing ideology, different Departments such as the Department of Finance, or Cabinet members on this issue. This Bill will cost money but there should be no big deal about the spending of money to ensure that services will be expanded.

Some Members believe that we can give the services and rights to children without expanding the existing ones. That is a cop-out to me. I urge the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, not to be intimidated by those who claim that these services will cost too much money. The reality is that the Bill has potential and the Minister may go down in history if he introduces equality legislation tied to it. It could be seen as an historic Bill which could become known as the Dempsey Bill. I urge him to dig in on this and push for the provision of services and rights.

Mr. Dennehy

I accept Deputy Stanton's point and I apologise for any confusion on the matter. I asked to be substituted on the select committee because there were four issues that concerned me about the Bill. I have not been a teacher but have been involved with health care for 29 years during which I have seen certain things happen.

There is a danger in discussing issues on this Stage of the Bill such as the number of hours available. That is a matter that will be dealt with later. The only concern I had, and one which the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, picked up on, was the word "enduring". I had concerns about the definition of that word, but I did not raise it as I hoped Members may have trashed it out earlier on. I want to see that word removed and the words "a physical" included. This is a much better definition, especially for those who will argue this point at a later stage when someone else will be Minister.

In my experience of dealing with officialdom, it is much easier to argue for a service for a group. However, the danger is that it suggests that someone has strength because he or she is in a group. The Bill concerns individual children, and the issue of whether their parents are aligned to a group does not matter. In the past, many people suffered because they kept their children at home and did not get involved with organisations such as the COPE Foundation in Cork. They suffered more than others because of not being involved with a group. The Bill should be drafted for the individual child. Flexibility is what is required in this part of the legislation. Based on my experience, if the word "enduring" is deleted, it would certainly meet the requirements.

I am not concerned about the costs associated with the Bill as that is someone else's problem down the line. For the rest, we can argue who does what, the professionals involved, the number of hours and how it is carried out. However, this part of the Bill needs to be right. In that context, I agree with both Deputies Enright and Stanton on the inclusion of the definition. However, the Government amendment No. 9 covers this.

The word " impairment" is tied into the mental health area where a number of definitions have been changed. "Impairment" is a universally recognised word. However Deputy Stanton has obviously read up on new definitions of it. If there is a word or a sentence——

Mr. Stanton

It is old hat and is gone by the wayside.

Mr. Dennehy

I do not want to go back to what we had before with eight or nine paragraphs which could be interpreted to exclude certain individuals. That is what we encountered in the past with disabled drivers, for example. I often felt that legislation was drafted to exclude as many people as possible. This Bill is inclusive. The word "enduring" concerned me because, as Deputy Stanton pointed out, an individual can contract a short-term illness such as meningitis and still recover. I would be happy for a substitute for "enduring" to be inserted. Each additional paragraph makes it easier for bureaucrats to erect barriers. I compliment the Minister on arriving at such a short definition that is inclusive.

Mr. Curran

I welcome the comments of the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, that those suffering from attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are to be included in the Bill.

The problem with definitions is the assessment process. I have seen children who have clearly had a learning disability sent for ADD assessment, yet these assessments and the form in which they were written were not conclusive. If one has a child with a learning disability, most people ask what is wrong and they look for a title for the condition. The reality is that these titles do not reflect the difficulty the child experiences. I wondered when reading this section how one would describe an educational disability. The definition in the Bill is good, but I am happier that the Government amendment allows additions by way of regulation. I can see this becoming more relevant in time and this part of the Bill needs that flexibility.

Deputy Stanton does not like the word " impairment" and he has focused on the need for the section to be needs-based. I have no problem with this, but a child with a disability has an "impairment" or whatever word one wishes to use. We have received representations from many different groups on this issue, but there are many children who do not fall into a specific category except that they have some form of disability. When parents of those children ask what would be best to do for them, they do not want them labelled "disabled". However, it is important to know the impairment in specific terms so that it can be worked out between parents and schools how best to improve the child's condition. It is not always an intellectual disability either as there are conditions affecting motor skills. However, it is important that the disability is recognised so that, when doing the relevant work, progress can be monitored. I appreciate the Deputy does not like the word " impairment". However, I have not seen a better definition than this one. I have not seen it phrased better. I do not like the word "impairment". Unfortunately, it has been phrased this way.

Mr. Stanton

Deputy Curran knows my views on this. He says he does not like the wording either. He has read up on the international and national thinking on this area. We are focusing on needs primarily. We ought to identify and meet those. The danger is that the focus would be on impairment, as it is described, and on disability. That is the difference. The thrust of our amendments has been to change the direction of the Bill, to identify needs, have a needs-based system and put the resources and support services in place to meet those needs.

Deputy Curran is right. One must have some idea of the disability and that is dealt with quite well in the Education Act. The Minister is focusing primarily on the disability to the exclusion of the needs. I am concerned about that and this is why I wish to highlight the needs issue. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Curran

I do not agree with that.

Mr. Stanton

We will agree to differ. I refer the Deputy to the Psychological Society of Ireland which is an expert in this area. It has pointed out that this wording is flawed and wrong. We must know and recognise if a disability exists and be able to determine what type it is. I wish to get away from the labelling of a child as disabled. If we leave the Bill as it is, that is what will happen. We will say that the child is disabled instead of saying that he or she has a disability and special needs which require support services. It is a crucial difference. Perhaps in a few years time, thinking will move on and we will catch up. However, given the way the Minister for Education and Science has approached this, it will not happen at this stage. Perhaps he would re-examine it and confer with some of the experts in the field.

Amendment No. 9 states: "including any impairment in the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time". It does not specify who, the council or the Minister, will fill the prescriptive function. If this is to be done, how will it be achieved? A council will be established which I assume will be as independent as we can make it. It is possible that there will be something along the lines of what the Minister said earlier, such as a statutory order. The Minister will make orders and direct the council. That is not prescribed in the Bill. Perhaps it needs to be if the Minister insists on pressing his amendment, which I hope he does not. If he insists on it, he ought to make it clear who will prescribe.

Is the Minister setting up a situation whereby, in future, prescription will often mean curtailing? We need to be careful to ensure that this does not happen. We must allow as many special needs people as possible to follow the scope of the Bill, without widening it to such an extent that it becomes totally diluted, and I agree with what the Minister said in this respect. There is a danger of doing this. We must be careful that we do not exclude people who have special needs because they have a disability or people who are disabled and end up blaming them for their own disability. This was the thinking in the past.

By changing the language in the Bill, the Minister can make a subtle difference which would be crucial in the long term to the way this legislation is approached. It was said that the definition in the Education Act was primarily medical. That is not true. It also refers to emotional problems, and these are not included in the Bill. Those of us who have taught in classrooms know how emotional problems can be disabling for a child. They are not included in the Bill.

I do not question the Minister's bona fides with regard to dyslexia, dysphasia, ADD, ADHD and so on. Deputy O'Sullivan and others referred to the fact that, unless the intention is made clear, we could have a problem in future where another Minister or Department might decide to raise the bar so high that people with learning difficulties might be excluded. The Minister's proposal is: "including any impairment of the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time". Deputy O'Sullivan said we should stop and learn. The professional people ought to make the decisions and judgments where they see that someone has a special educational need that must be met.

Mr. N. Dempsey

Many points have been made focusing on two or three different issues. They seem to come back to the same question, namely, definition. The amended definition I have put forward is not perfect but is as near to perfect as I can get it now. Deputy Enright and Deputy Gogarty made a few suggestions, as did Deputy Stanton, about the Education Act and the definitions it contains and perhaps that we should incorporate some aspect of that, especially ENF, into our definition under amendments Nos. 4 to 9. I can examine that.

If I do what Deputy O'Sullivan suggests and remove the words "that may be prescribed from time to time", the danger is everything that is an impairment of the capacity to learn would come within the remit of the Bill. That could include a range of social reasons. I understand the Deputies' argument but it would have an effect.

Ms O’Sullivan

What about the Minister's wording on learning disability?

Mr. N. Dempsey

The Deputy's wording substitutes "a".

Ms O’Sullivan

That is in amendment No. 10. by adding "or a learning disability".

Mr. N. Dempsey

It is a possibility but is one I would have to consider further. It will be necessary to prescribe from time to time as there needs to be prescription on this matter. Prescription does not necessarily mean restriction. It is important that there be an ability to include more as the Bill is designed to include rather than exclude. Deputy Stanton asked who would have prescriptive powers. The Minister for Education and Science, under section 39, will do whatever prescription is needed. All the regulations under the Bill, some of which would come before the Houses of the Oireachtas, come under section 39.

Perhaps someone can come up with a better word than "enduring". We must avoid a situation where the Bill can be used to make up for every possible short-term disability, impairment or whatever word is used or to try to impose such obligations. I feel strongly that the spirit of the Bill is that we care for people with educational disabilities. We all know what we are talking about. We do not wish to dilute the Bill. Unless the provision is qualified in some manner, lawyers will quickly use the Bill, or Act when it is enacted, to argue that someone who perhaps, as Deputy Dennehy said, has a short-term medical condition that affects their learning should be included in it. I do not know if we can define "enduring" , in the definitions part of the Bill. There needs to be some restriction to ensure the Bill is not diluted.

On the more general point made by Deputy Stanton, we are trying to provide legislation for people with disabilities, impairments or deficiencies that have to be accommodated so that he or she may reach his or her full potential.

Chairman

Perhaps the break will be of assistance.

Mr. Dempsey

I thought we might come to the next section fully refreshed. It will take me two minutes to finish.

Chairman

There are six potential votes each lasting at least eight minutes, so it might be sensible to adjourn until 3 p.m. The Minister will be in possession.

Sitting suspended at 2.02 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.

Mr. N. Dempsey

Before the suspension I was about to conclude my remarks about this series of amendments. While we should be focusing on the needs of the children concerned, the very fact that we have a Bill before us called the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill means that we are setting out to try to do something for a specific group of people. I do not see a way around the fact that, within the Bill, we are going to have to provide for people with disabilities, impairments or whatever word one wants to use; we may be getting unduly bogged down and focused on that. The Bill will establish whether a person has particular educational needs and will do that by way of assessment. When the assessment is done it will outline how the needs will be met and will provide for a range of appeals and participation by parents in assessing and meeting those needs. No matter how we wish to dress it up, it is not possible to avoid the fact that we are trying to address particular needs of people who have an impairment, a disability or whatever word one wishes to use.

A difficulty has arisen in relation to the use of the word "enduring". No one has come up with a better suggestion. Should we speak about long-term disabilities? People will disagree with the use of the word "permanent" because someone could have a learning disability that would continue for quite a period of time but it might not last forever.

If members wish to press amendments that is fine by me but there is only one thing I can say by way of being helpful. We have moved considerably regarding definitions in this area. The definition I am putting forward is similar to that in the National Disability Authority Act and is much less medically focused. In response to points made by a number of Deputies, I have indicated that my amendment No. 429 could incorporate one or two of the subsections of the appropriate section in the Education Act to take their view into account and to make the legislation all embracing. I do not think I could go further than that. The two amendments I have tabled are a positive move forward and I ask the committee to accept them. I can go no further at present.

Mr. Stanton

Dr. Michael Slevin, senior lecturer in special education in Trinity College, Dublin, has said that educational disability is a term he never encountered before in his professional practice or in the literature on special education.

Could the Minister give us examples of an enduring mental health or intellectual impairment?

Mr. N. Dempsey

I can give some examples but I could then be accused of excluding a range of people. At one end of the spectrum, a child with autism has an enduring impairment. Dyslexia, while it may not last forever, could be enduring. I do not think it is for me to list what might or might not be an enduring condition. It is easier to define what I am trying to avoid. I wish to avoid including a person who has some disability that leads to his learning ability being affected over a short period of time. I do not think we should include that in this Bill. In trying to be helpful, that is the best I can do for the Deputy. The Deputy has not come up with a better word.

Mr. Stanton

The reason I have not is that I have been on a totally different track. I wanted to get away from this definition. I am sure we could come up with something else if the Minister persists in sticking with it.

I am sure the Minister agrees that mental health includes depression. If someone suffers from depression he will have highs and lows and can be treated and function very well. Would the Minister include that as an enduring mental health impairment? We must be clear what "enduring" means. If a person can get well and not have a need for support at a particular time but might develop a difficulty later on, can one say his condition is enduring? This presents an immediate problem. I am given to understand that ADHD, for example, can be relieved with medication but can come and go. I do not wish to be flippant, but if someone had a serious accident, was physically injured and confined to a wheelchair for some months he or she would not be able to attend school unless supports were put in place. However, one could not say such a person had an enduring physical disability. What would happen in such a case? It is important that we spell this definition out clearly now because if it goes into law it will be beyond us. I was focusing on needs. I did not come up with an alternative word to "enduring" because I was moving away from that. Can the Minister answer these questions?

Mr. N. Dempsey

The Bill deals with individuals not groups. We are trying to ensure that where disability leads to an impairment in learning difficulties a person will be individually assessed and where it is deemed by a professional that such person has a disability or enduring impairment then he or she will receive an individual education plan. I understand what Deputy Stanton is trying to do but no legislation in the world can cater for every situation that might arise. We are focused on individual education plans where teams of people will assess a person, determine his/her needs and ensure they are addressed. That is the best safeguard I can give.

It is impossible to cover in this Bill every possible scenario that might arise. We must give people the right to an individual assessment and an individual education plan. That is the best we can do. I am not competent to decide whether a person suffering with depression has an enduring impairment which would entitle him or her to educational assistance. Such decisions must be taken by professionals based on individual circumstances. The best guarantee I can give is that each person will be treated as an individual and will be assessed individually.

People close to children with various disabilities or impairments — Down's syndrome and autism were specifically referred to earlier — point out that there is quite a range of abilities and capabilities involved. The capabilities of some children are quite different to those of others. Rather than trying to include an absolute definition which is too rigid and which ties everything down, we should go the route of individual assessments and individual recommendations on needs as a result of such assessments. We should operate the widest definition possible. That is what we are doing.

Ms O’Sullivan

The Minister's definition refers to the capacity of a child to participate in education on account of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment. One could not construe that definition as including conditions such as dyslexia. In considering that definition objectively one must decide if it relates to physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual disabilities and must then conclude that there are some learning conditions that may not fall into that category. I do not want to sign off on a Bill that is that narrowly prescribed and that, in my opinion, omits those particular conditions. The Minister needs to consider widening the definition further. I will not deal with the issue of endurance because Deputy Stanton has dealt with that point.

I am not happy with the current definition which does not suggest every child with a physical disability is restricted in his or her capacity to participate in education. It facilitates, in the case of a child with physical disability which impacts on his or her ability to participate in education, the inclusion of that child and giving him or her the right to an assessment of need. I believe the current definition specifically excludes children with other learning difficulties. The Minister should consider the inclusion of the word "learning" in the definition. The current definition restricts the breadth of the Bill.

I am also concerned about amendment No. 429 in the Minister's name which seeks to introduce the same definition to the Education Act 1998 and is retrospectively reducing people's rights in that regard. That legislation was quoted in the Sinnott judgment. We need to be careful not only in how we delimit the Bill but in how we retrospectively delimit the Education Act 1998. I ask the Minister to consider, before Report Stage, whether we are restricting the rights of children with particular learning and behavioural difficulties.

Mr. Gogarty

If the Minister in his wisdom proceeds with amendments Nos. 9 and 429 he should, with respect, take on board Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment which makes some sense of those amendments. There is a need for members on all sides to take on board what people are saying. I have taken on board some of the Minister's points.

If the Minister could give a commitment that the specifics of the 1998 Act as listed in amendment No. 6 and as referred to in other amendments will be included in the wording of the definition of educational disability that would go a long way towards not having to vote on a number of these issues. If the Bill does not define "enduring" then somewhere down the line guidelines could be issued — as I mentioned before — stating that "enduring" means, X, Y or Z. That could be done by way of ministerial decree or departmental advice rather than being stated in legislation. That is dangerous ground.

I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that the use of the words "physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual" is far more restrictive than the words used in subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the 1998 Act which are much more encompassing of what could be termed a disability. The amendments before us seek to cover every type of disability. The Bill defines educational disability as a restriction in a child’s capacity to participate in and benefit from education on account of his or her disability. That is a short definition of educational disability; it is shorter than that included in the Minister’s amendment. The definition of a disability is much more encompassing. Later sections of the Bill will ensure there are no willy nilly assessments and that children requiring occasional resource teaching are not included. The Bill requires a broader definition of disability to ensure no person is omitted. It is harder to bring people in after they have been left out than to tighten up when they have been included.

The Minister should illustrate what subsections of the 1998 Act he would be willing to include in a new revised definition of educational disability.

Mr. N. Dempsey

We can go around in circles on this point all afternoon. I have already indicated that I am prepared to examine subsections (e) and (f) of the 1998 Act to determine whether this is covered by amendment No. 429. I am only giving a commitment to consider whether it is necessary to incorporate the definition of disability.

In response to Deputy O'Sullivan, the phrase "that may be prescribed from time to time" is contained in my amendment No. 9 to meet the point she makes. Matters of which we are not aware at present may become issues in the future. In the past two or three years a growing number of disabilities have arisen that must be dealt with through the special needs section of the Department. Those conditions we look after at the moment — ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, etc. — can be listed in regulations. Amendment No. 9 gives us the flexibility to add others in time.

I cannot go further than I have. The two amendments are reasonable and have been discussed at great detail with various groups right up to December. People are generally happy that this is an improvement. If we can improve it further on Report Stage, I will try to do so, but I cannot offer any guarantees. I am not happy to leave the Bill as it is. If this means a vote, so be it.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Crowe, Seán.
• Enright, Olwyn.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Stanton, David.

Níl

• Curran, John.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• Ellis, John.
• Killeen, Tony.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• O’Keeffe, Ned.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

Ms O’Sullivan

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 4, to delete "an enduring" and substitute "a".

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Crowe, Seán.
• Enright, Olwyn.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Stanton, David.

Níl

• Curran, John.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• Ellis, John.
• Killeen, Tony.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• O’Keeffe, Ned.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 5, after "impairment" to insert "(including any impairment of the capacity to learn that may be prescribed from time to time)".

Amendment put and declared carried.

Ms O’Sullivan

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 5, after "impairment" to insert "or a learning disability".

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Crowe, Seán.
• Enright, Olwyn.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Stanton, David.

Níl

• Curran, John.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• Ellis, John.
• Killeen, Tony.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• O’Keeffe, Ned.

Amendment declared lost.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 58, 61, 73, 81, 188, 204, 211, 216, 220, 247, 259 and 262 are cognate to amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 84, 92, 172, 173, 175, 189, 190, 212, 217, 231, 248, 280, 281, 284, 285, 300, 322, 325 and 331 comprise a related cognate group and amendment No. 290 is related. I propose that they be discussed together, by agreement.

Ms Enright

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 6, before "education" to insert "individual".

The purpose of this amendment is to reflect the language that everybody, including the Minister, uses when discussing this topic. The understanding has always been that individual education plans would be provided. The amendment makes this clear. If accepted, it would ensure children would not be grouped together in the carrying out of plans. The amendment seeks to insert the word "individual" before "education" to ensure the Bill will guarantee that where an assessment shows a particular child or student has a certain need, an individual plan will be created for him or her. It will clarify the nature of the plan for each student.

Mr. Stanton

My colleague has articulated the purpose of the amendment. It emphasises that the children are individuals. I was heartened to hear the Minister stress in his comments on the previous set of amendments that we are dealing with individuals. It is no harm to call the plans individual education plans because that is what they are. Rather than creating an off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all plan, each person should have an individual pan tailored according to his or her needs.

My reading of the Bill indicates that there are three types of education plans. The first is where the principal of a school causes a plan to be brought forward. The second is where the special needs organiser is very much involved and the third is when the council is involved. There may be confusion between who is responsible for aspects of a plan. My reading of the Bill is that the council gets involved when the principal deems outside expertise and help to be necessary. In such cases, we propose to use the phrase "individual education programme" rather than "individual education plan". The use of the word "programme" will lend the legislation more gravitas and differentiate between the plans prepared at school level and those prepared when the council is involved. When people are talking about an individual education plan, they will know it is school based and that the principal and special needs organiser are involved rather than the council. When they are talking about a special individual education programme, they will know the council is involved and that more resources are required.

The proposed wording is of a technical nature and will not make a huge difference to the working of the Bill. However, for the sake of clarity, it would be very useful to accept the amendment. The Minister might agree with us or he might have a better suggestion. In either case, there needs to be differentiation between what the council proposes and what is proposed at school level by the principals and special educational needs organisers.

Mr. Crowe

I support the amendment and the other related amendments tabled by Deputies Enright and Stanton. Amendment No. 11 would strengthen the Bill. The Minister referred to a dilution of the Bill, but the use of the word "individual" would strengthen it. Instead of having a one-size-fits-all, pre-formulated plan, plans would be tailor-made to suit the needs of individual students. The individual plan caters for individual students. This could lead to attempts being made to force students into a dangerous straitjacket of guidelines that do not apply to them. A child from a severely disadvantaged economic background attending school in such an area will require a different plan from a child that does not suffer the same disadvantage. It is important that the Minister makes clear that every plan should be specifically tailored to the specific needs of every child.

Ms O’Sullivan

I strongly support the amendments. While it may not be absolutely necessary in terms of wording in the Bill, it is important we make it clear that each child is treated as an individual.

Mr. Gogarty

Each child is an individual and should be treated that way. I support these amendments.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I understand what the Deputies are trying to do. However, we are still dealing with definitions and are stating what an education plan is in accordance with the terms of this Bill. Section 1(1), lines 6 and 7 state: ""education plan" shall be construed in accordance with section 3 or 7, as appropriate”. Any reading of sections 3, 7 or 8 makes it clear that the focus of this is the child and that the plan is individual to each child. It is not an off the shelf plan — it is everything the Deputies want and desire. It is an individual plan and two sections of the Bill provide the definition. As this is the definition section of the Bill, the amendments are unnecessary.

The thrust of the Bill is concerned with trying to enhance the rights of the individual to an education. The Bill is concerned with the fundamental rights of children with disabilities in our education system. It aims to build on the foundation of the individual right to education of every child guaranteed in the Constitution. I will not accept the amendments as sections 3, 7 and 8 lay to rest the fears the Deputies have raised about individual education plans.

Mr. Stanton

I am disappointed that the Minister has decided not to accept even some of these amendments. I thought naming the education plan as an individual education plan would have strengthened the Bill. It could have been known as an IEP, an individual education plan. Why not call it this? What harm would it do? Surely it would strengthen the Bill. The Minister has not said he would be opposed to calling it an individual education plan. All members, including the Minister, agree that the plan will be individual to each child, therefore, why not call it an individual education plan?

Mr. N. Dempsey

People can call it an individual education plan if they want. It is not necessary to refer to an individual education plan in the definition section of the Bill; it is adequately dealt with in sections 3 and 7.

Mr. Stanton

We are dealing with a number of amendments that refer to different parts of the Bill. We are proposing that this be known as an individual education plan throughout the Bill. We should emphasise the word "individual" and call it that. What is the Minister afraid of? If it is wrong it can be changed on Report Stage. The Minister should have the courage of his convictions and call it an individual education plan.

We have also proposed a special individual education programme. Does the Minister not agree that there is a need to differentiate between what the council puts forward and what happens at school level? The council prepares an education plan, the principal has an education plan and the special needs organiser has an education plan. Using the same term across the board could become confusing. Section 7(1) states:

The Council upon being informed by a health board or the principal of a relevant school that a child has special educational needs shall, unless an education plan has been or is being prepared under section 3 in respect of the child, direct the relevant special educational needs organiser to cause to be prepared a plan for the appropriate education of the child (in this Act also referred to as an “education plan”).

This section is confusing as it refers to the council and school preparing plans. For the sake of clarity, the acceptance of these amendments by the Minister would be useful.

Mr. F. McGrath

I strongly disagree with the Minister and support amendment No. 11. We all agree that each child is different, has individual needs and that priority must be given to the needs of the child. This is the progressive view in education, from both educationalists and parents. Supporting amendment No. 11 gives more teeth to the Bill.

Plans such as this are already in existence in progressive schools. The Minister is probably aware that many disadvantaged schools that deal with children with reading difficulties or children living in poverty have adopted many of the suggestions proposed in this legislation. Progressive schools have become involved in group practice, reading ability and applied different strategies. There are examples of good practice in the education system, such as Breaking the Cycle programme. These should be used and developed. Schools have come up with fantastic and radical ideas to deal with literacy and language problems. Amendment No. 11 supports good practice and strengthens the Bill.

Mr. Dennehy

Section 3 is the section affected by this amendment. Section 3(4) provides that for the student concerned, the assessment will "cause a plan to be prepared for the appropriate education of the student". I do not see how anyone could possibly misread this. It would be difficult to make it more specific.

I agree with Deputy McGrath. While we often talk ourselves down, we are doing many good things around the country. However, I am still worried about the position regarding children with dyspraxia and I look forward to dealing with this aspect. It would be difficult to find anything more specific than to state "the student concerned" and that the plan is prepared for the appropriate education of that student. That is fairly specific.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I do not have much to add to what I have already said. All the amendments would do is add a word or a number of words in a number of places. To be blunt, they do nothing else. As Deputy Dennehy said, any reading of section 3 reveals at least five references to the "child" or the "student". It is quite clear that it is an individual.

I accept Deputy Stanton's point about the other wording which he has later on in a special individual educational programme, that if we start introducing two or three different names to the what is essentially the same thing, it will cause confusion. The education plan is drawn up by the school if it can. It is an individual education plan for the child, if people want to call it that. The council comes into play if it is deemed by the principal of the school that it cannot provide an educational plan for the child and it then moves to being the responsibility of the council. Changing the name because the council is doing the plan will not add anything other that the confusion which Deputies are trying to avoid.

On Committee Stage, I am normally willing to take on board anything I see as being practical or helpful to the Bill and I will do so, as I have indicated in one case. However, there is absolutely no merit adding the word "individual" here and for that reason I will not be accepting any of the amendments.

Ms Enright

Once again I disagree with the Minister on this point. I can see his and Deputy Dennehy's reading of section 3 and their interpretation of it but it is not one with which I agree. Assessment of a student will obviously have to be carried out as an individual since one cannot assess two students together. However, under section 3 as it stands, there is no reason education plans cannot be prepared with two or three students together if the special needs organiser, the principal of whoever, feels the difficulties are similar. That is why we are pressing the use of the word "individual", to make this very clear. If the Minister believes that not inserting the word will make no difference, surely inserting it will not either. However, I do not concur with his point and the use of the word "individual" makes it perfectly clear what we are referring to and will prevent someone making a decision to put a number of students together. We are trying to prevent this.

Mr. N. Dempsey

One cannot do that under the Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Mr. Stanton

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"'psychologist' is a psychologist employed by or approved by the National Educational Psychological Service;".

In this amendment we suggest a definition for psychologist because it is not defined anywhere in the Bill. There are different types of psychologists, including those dealing with industry. They would all have basic psychology. However, we are saying that to ensure the people employed to do work under this Bill as psychologists and bearing in mind we do not have a statutory definition of a psychologist yet, although legislation is promised, we should include the National Educational Psychological Service here, so that a psychologist would be either employed by or approved by the NEPS. Therefore, when we refer to psychologists in the Bill, we have some benchmark.

I know from a recent meeting with the NEPS that it does good work employing psychologists and ensuring they are experienced and appropriately qualified. That is why we have tabled this amendment. As far as I know, anyone can hang up a shingle and call himself or herself a psychologist. At least this gives some definition to the term. It is important that the NEPS is involved at this stage and this is a way in which it can do so. The service obviously does not yet have enough people to cover all the schools. This amendment would add to the Bill and I am interested to hear the Minister's views or if he has alternative proposals.

Ms Enright

In my experience some parents, perhaps due to the improper or ineffectual roll out of the NEPS, have been paying psychologists to carry out reports which are not always accepted. This proposed provision would alleviate that problem and ensure that when reports are carried out, they can be accepted.

Mr. Dennehy

I have long been concerned with the need to recognise that many professions and disciplines have become easier to get into. In some cases, for example, counselling, one can study for just a few months and put a plate on the wall.

I would like to see the Minister take the thinking behind this amendment on board. There are concerns between disciplines in regard to how far one can go, for instance in regard to paramedical practice. I am worried about handing over power to a self-disciplining body. We have a problem with orthodontists because a small group of people can decide how many will practice in the country and how many and who will qualify with the result that we are paying double what patients pay in Northern Ireland for example.

The Minister has established a special education council along the lines of which should decide who is qualified. We need to define who is qualified but I would be concerned about giving that control to a parent body. I ask the Minister to consider the special education council having a say. I agree with Deputy Stanton that we need to lay down a minimum standard. I would like to hear the Minister's response since whenever we hand over to any service to decide who its peers should be, we have difficulties such as in the legal profession and the medical profession.

Mr. Stanton

As the Deputy knows, this is a section of the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Dennehy

I appreciate that. They still come out of the same classroom. I would like to hear the Minister address my concerns across the board. I do not want to have him knocking on my door in the morning, but it is important we define who can carry out assessments and what a psychologist is.

Mr. Curran

I agree with Deputy Dennehy and previous speakers that this area must be controlled. We must know who will carry out these tests and there must be correct procedures for the appointment of appropriate psychologists. The National Education Psychological Service itself has a role to perform, and this is probably straying into another area. This Bill sets up the special education council, and it would seem appropriate that this be its function rather than going to an agency which is already in existence and already has a specific purpose and function to perform. This area needs to be regulated and controlled, and that should be done by the council. It does need to be tied down.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I accept the spirit of this amendment and can accept where the Deputies are coming from. Amendment No. 184 permits parents to nominate one or more people to participate in assessment processes. That may include a psychologist provided the council recognises that person's qualifications. If the Deputies are agree to withdraw the amendment we will bring forward an alternative. However, I would be more inclined to make the council, not NEPS, responsible for recognising the qualifications and a panel of people who could go down this particular route. I accept the spirit of the amendment and will come back on Report Stage with a suitable amendment to meet the requirements outlined by the Deputies in their amendment.

Deputy Stanton

I think we are all agreed that this is an important consideration. The problem is that at the moment we have the National Education Psychological Service, and the Minister might tell us what role he sees that body performing under this Bill. Section 5, for instance, includes a provision for a psychologist to be involved in an assessment. Could that be a NEPS psychologist or would the psychologist already approved and employed by NEPS then have to be recognised by the council? The number of psychologists in the country is very limited and there is a shortage in particular of people with expertise in this area and appropriate qualifications in educational or clinical psychology.

We need some kind of clarity around this because as far as I know anybody at present can hang up a shingle and call themselves psychologists. We have not got to section 5 yet, which concerns itself with definitions, but who is to say under the section who is and is not a psychologist? These people will be making serious recommendations on behalf of persons with special needs so it is important to know where we are going.

As there is no clarity regarding any statutory recognition of psychology — at least as far as I know, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong — the next best way of doing this would be for NEPS to vet and look at the qualifications of psychologists. Its representatives told the committee a number of weeks ago that it has certain criteria for employing psychologists under its service, which in my view are pretty good. In this Bill, however, anybody can call themselves psychologists and there are no real safeguards. Somebody could come to a parent and claim to be a psychologist, and who is to say they are not? They may have some kind of paper qualifications from universities abroad saying they are psychologists.

Counselling is another very suspect area in this regard and one that we need to focus on. There is an opportunity here at least to impose some little bit of control or parameters by making NEPS responsible for employing the psychologists. Again, the Minister might tell me whether he sees the psychologists mentioned in section 5 as being NEPS psychologists or whether they would be excluded from the work under this Bill. Would NEPS be involved at all and what involvement would it have? Involving it would be one way of ensuring some control so that parents dealing with psychologists under the Bill would know that at least the psychologist has been approved by NEPS.

NEPS is under the control of the Department of Education and Science and is not an outside parent body or whatever, so the State itself would be indirectly approving psychologists with appropriate qualifications and experience. That is what NEPS is doing already. This is a serious issue.

Deputy Gogarty

I agree with most of what Deputy Stanton has said. In regard to the amendment, however, I agree with amendment No. 184 in the name of the Minister. The reality on the ground is that not enough NEPS psychologists have been appointed yet and it will take a long time. Psychologists working under the auspices of the Department of Health and Children who would be equally qualified and tying the role down to NEPS specifically might lead to a log jam. While that might save money for the State it would not be in the best interests of people with learning disabilities.

I reiterate that the Minister has had qualified psychologists from the Department of Health and Children give an opinion that was contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Department of Education and Science. As such, that very well qualified second opinion on the number of hours allocated to a student was overridden not for professional reasons but purely because of departmental guidelines. Given the situation that exists, mentioning NEPS at this stage in the definitions would exacerbate that problem and lead to more departmental guidelines and less resource allocation to those who most need it. In a perverse way I must agree with the Minister's amendment. The process needs to be as fluid as possible and assessments carried out as quickly as possible. Amendment No. 184 allows for some parental influence so I very reluctantly withhold support from the well founded amendment by my Fine Gael colleagues.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy N. Dempsey

I move amendmentNo. 14:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 20 and 21.

This is just a technical amendment. The term "recognised school" is not used anywhere in the Bill so the reference to it here must be deleted. Amendment No. 16, which we will come to in a few moments, will define "school" for the purposes of the Bill. By way of explanation to the Deputies, the term "recognised school" is not included anywhere in the Bill and because it has a specific meaning in legislation we are trying to ensure that children who are not in what we normally term a recognised school, perhaps on a Youthreach programme or something like that, can be covered by the Bill, as well as children who are outside of school altogether — in a home situation perhaps. We will probably discuss this in more detail under amendment No. 16. It is a technical point.

Ms Enright

Under the definition in the 1998 Act would special schools be included?

Mr. N. Dempsey

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 25, to delete "Council" and substitute "Minister".

This is also a technical amendment. The present definition is incorrect because it refers to bodies recognised by the council, whereas the bodies concerned are those that must be recognised by the Minister. The reference to trade unions and staff associations arises only in the context of sections 19 and 20, which cover the composition of the council and the consultative forum.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are alternatives to amendment No. 16, therefore, amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, will be discussed togehter by agreement.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete line 30 and substitute the following:

"‘school' means a recognised school (within the meaning of the Act of 1998);".

This is a technical amendment replacing the term "recognised school" with "school" as the latter is used throughout the Bill. Amendments 17 and 18 are not necessary given that the right to an assessment and an education plan and support services can be availed of, regardless of where the child receives his or her education.

The word "parent" has the same meaning in the Bill as in the Education Act 1998, that is, any person or body acting in loco parentis, including a health board or other institution, may seek an assessment in the same way as the parent of a child attending school. Amendment No. 16 covers the alternatives offered in amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

Mr. Stanton

I am pleased the Minister is doing this but could he clarify what schools and institutions under the Children Acts 1908-99, the Health Acts 1947-96 and the Child Care Act 1999 are included as a result of what he proposes to do? Some of these are special places of detention. If a child is in a special place of detention and has a disability that affects his or her education will he or she be included in the Bill? Can the Minister expand on what was intended by the Children Acts 1908 to 1999 and the Health Acts 1947 to 1996 and what they included and excluded?

Mr. N. Dempsey

The focus is on the child, irrespective of where he or she is, whether it be a place of detention, at home, in hospital, or anywhere else. Where the child resides is immaterial. That is as it should be and is in keeping with the point made by other members before and since the Bill was published, that we keep the focus on the child, or a young person in certain cases, at all times, and on his or her needs. In view of this, there is no need to refer to the definitions in the Children Acts and so on.

Mr. Stanton

Am I right in saying that it is up to the Minister to designate the schools? Section 10(1) of the Education Act 1998 provides that on a request being made for that purpose, the Minister may from time to time designate a school or a proposed school to be a school recognised for the purposes of the Act. A request must be made and the Minister may or may not decide to designate the school or proposed school. This means there is nothing in the Bill to say that the Minister must recognise, or that specifically includes, the institutions that are excluded. They are still excluded. It will be for the Minister of the day to include them. What institutions may the Minister designate that are not already included? It is important for us to know that now.

Mr. N Dempsey

I am not clear as to why the Deputy needs to know what schools I may or may not recognise under the 1998 Act. That is not relevant to this Act because the child is the focus of attention. We are concerned here about definitions and perhaps when we come to the sections dealing with a school, or whatever, the Deputy's point may be more relevant. At present we are only dealing with a definition of a school.

I understand the Deputy's concern to ensure that children or young people in an institution not recognised under the 1998 Act will not also be excluded by this legislation but I assure him that any child, no matter where she or he is, whether in a school, a residential home or any of the homes covered by the definition of the Children Acts, is entitled to the provisions of this legislation. It does not matter whether the school is recognised.

We are dealing here with the definitions section of the Bill. If I interpret the Deputy's concern correctly, as I believe I do, no child will be excluded from the provisions of the Bill simply because he or she is in an institution that is not a formally recognised school under the meaning of the Education Act 1998. I give the Deputy that firm assurance.

Mr. Stanton

I have to accept that. However, as the Minister knows, in the Education Act 1998 a recognised school is one which is recognised by the Minister in accordance with section 10. Does that mean that all those schools excluded under the definition of schools in the Act are now recognised?

Mr. N. Dempsey

Irrespective of where the child is, whether in a school that is not officially recognised, she or he is recognised as having the full benefit of this legislation.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Stanton

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"‘student with special educational needs' means a student who requires support services addtional to an ordinary school programme and will include students where such requirements may be caused by a disability;".

I will withdraw this amendment on the basis that it may be reintroduced on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gogarty

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 35, after "1998" to insert "but for the purposes of this Act shall include early intervention and auditory services".

This amendment proposes to allow for early intervention and auditory services, as specified by one of the advocacy groups. The term "early intervention" should be included in the definition in order to allow for more flexibility in terms of who receives the services and when. This adds to the reference in the 1998 Act. The Minister has indicated that he has no problem with adding to, or improving on, the 1998 Act where he so wishes. This applies only to the definition of support services to allow for auditory services and for earlier intervention than the Minister might have advocated.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I assure the Deputy that the provision he requests is already in the Bill and it directly addresses his concerns. Support services are broadly defined under the Education Act 1998 and the term retains the same meaning in the Bill. Everything regarding support services in the 1998 Act is included here. Such services are broadly defined in the Education Act 1998. In the Bill, the term "support services" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1998 and all the provisions regarding these services are included. Also included are provisions for students learning through sign language and interpreting services.

Mr. Gogarty

What about early intervention?

Mr. N. Dempsey

Originally, the definition of "child" in the Education Act 1998 covered an age cohort of four to 18 years. The similar definition in the Bill covers an age cohort of zero to 18 years. If that is coupled with the right under section 4 to seek an assessment for a pre-school child — the first time it has been included — it means that early intervention is strongly provided for in the Bill, as the Deputy desires. The point raised by his amendment and its spirit are met in the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Gogarty

I take the Minister's point on inclusion from zero years of age. Again, like Deputies Enright and Stanton earlier, I am seeking to include in the Bill a specific reference as it would tighten the definition. However, given what the Minister has said, I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"‘voluntary body' has the same meaning as it has in the Comhairle Act 2000.".

This is a technical amendment. During the course of consultations on the Bill, most groups expressed a desire for the voluntary sector to be better provided for in its provisions. Amendments Nos. 357 and 376 will seek to achieve this. This amendment seeks to include voluntary groups in the definition in order to refer to them in those later amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms Enright

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 6, lines 38 to 41 and in page 7, lines 1 to 9, to delete subsection (2).

This is a technical amendment. The Interpretation Act commenced on 1 January and it will govern the interpretation of this Bill when it is eventually enacted. The formula of words contained in section 1(2) has been included in previous Bills as a matter of course. However, as section 9 of the Interpretation Act deals with the issue which section 1(2) is attempting to address, this provision is no longer necessary and I propose its deletion.

Mr. N. Dempsey

That is a technical matter of drafting and I will consult with the Parliamentary Counsel on it. I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage if it is deemed necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Ms Enright

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 7, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

2. —The Minister shall ensure that the policies and principles of this Act have been fully implemented and are enforceable within 3 years after the commencement of this Act.".

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the Minister for Education and Science is responsible and accountable for the full implementation of the Bill rather than the Special Education Council. It will also ensure that the provisions of the Bill are enforceable within a three year rather than a five year period. On Second Stage, I said that when the Bill was published the Minister alluded to the implementation of the provisions in as a quick a timeframe as possible, which is five years. This is longer than those concerned expected and is something they cannot tolerate.

I appreciate there are logistical difficulties with a three year timeframe, such as having the necessary therapists available, particularly when the Minister for Health and Children claims that it will be ten years before the numbers available are adequate. I also understand that having assessments carried out is all well and good, but that the necessary therapists need to be in place. That said, I wish to see a tighter timeframe in which the provisions of the legislation are achieved.

Ms O’Sullivan

I support this amendment. I have also tabled an amendment that addresses this issue. I note that the Minister also has an amendment which suggests implementing some sections of the Bill at different times to others. At this point, it may not be appropriate to address this, but I support the principle of bringing the Bill into force as quickly as possible. The sooner the rights-based assessment of needs can be put on the Statute Book, the better.

Mr. Stanton

My colleagues have said all I wished to say. This amendment gives a timetable to getting the Bill up and running in a realistic way.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I agree with the desire of everyone concerned to have the Bill fully enacted as quickly as possible. However, it must be balanced with the realities of what must be done to ensure that it is put in place in a reasonable period. As Deputy O'Sullivan stated, section 21 provides for an implementation roadmap for the Bill in which a target limit of five years has been set. I concede that we would all like to see the Bill implemented in an earlier timeframe. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent this. However, it is necessary to have realistic timeframes.

I admit to curtailing my own impatience on getting these provisions implemented, but the last thing I want is for the legislation to contain unrealistic timeframes that cannot be met. That would bring the legislation and the special education council into disrepute. A five year time limit is one with which most of those concerned can accept.

It is important that once the legislation is enacted, the implementation of its provisions would start as soon as possible. We have consulted with the various groups representing persons with disabilities, who also would like a shorter timeframe, but who are reasonably happy and in broad agreement with the five year timeframe, provided we stick to it. There are yet others who see it as being too ambitious. I believe it is achievable in a five year timeframe, but not in a three year one. For this reason, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Ms Enright

I hope that on Report Stage the Minister will give us an idea of the timeframe for the implementation of the different parts of the Bill over the five year period.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms O’Sullivan

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 7, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—It is hereby declared that in enacting this Act, the Oireachtas has had regard to the following principles:

(a) legislation in the area of education of persons with disabilities must be based on international human rights standards;

(b) the overall objective of such legislation must be equal access to effective and adequate levels of education;

(c) education should be provided within the mainstream education service or in the least restrictive alternative;

(d) education services should be based on an individualised assessment of need;

(e) parental involvement and where possible, involvement of the person with disabilities should be a central element of the process;

(f) delivery of services should be based on the principle of progressive achievement;

(g) a rights-based system of enforceable remedies are an essential component of any system of redress.”.

This amendment arises from the submission by the Human Rights Commission to the committee. It has a statutory function to make recommendations with regard to the rights aspect of legislation and it is important to listen to what it has to say. This suggestion is very practical and goes to the heart of our intentions in the Bill. Essentially, it lays down a set of principles to guide the legislation. No one would object to the general principles, particularly the first, under paragraph (a), which provides that the legislation be based on international human rights standards. We are already required to meet obligations in this area, for example, under the European Convention on Human Rights and the various United Nations declarations, including provisions on standardised rules and so on. All this is happening within a framework of people’s rights at various levels.

One of the major demands of the various organisations that have come together is the implementation of rights-based legislation. They want to ensure that those rights can be vindicated. The last principle in the amendment, at paragraph (g), refers to a rights-based system of enforceable remedies being an essential component of any system of redress. In the submission from the Human Rights Commission, it suggests that these be judicially enforceable. I am not suggesting that, since we have the alternative system of the appeals board, although, ultimately, people also have the right to go to court. That is the only variation I have inserted into the proposal contained in the submission by the Irish Human Rights Commission.

The other principles set out in the amendment are self-explanatory. They include the right to an assessment of need, to parental involvement at all stages, the principle of progressive achievement, the need to ensure that the child is in the least restrictive educational environment, preferably mainstreaming, and that there be general equality of access to effective education. I believe that everyone will agree with these principles. Given that the body that recommended these changes — the Human Rights Commission — has a statutory obligation in this regard, I hope the Minister may be willing to accept them.

Mr. N. Dempsey

No one would disagree with the principles outlined in the amendment. It is fair to say that they are very much the principles that underpin the Bill. Having said that, it may seem strange that I do not propose to accept the amendment, but there are several reasons for this. While the issues are very important and Deputy O'Sullivan has done us a service by raising them, they are all, either implicitly or explicitly, already provided for in the Bill. We talked earlier about ensuring that Bills are as simple and straightforward as possible. While the wording of the amendment is simple, repetition in a Bill is not a good thing as it can make many lawyers rich arguing about whether one part contradicts another. I will not expand on that aspect.

Section 2 provides for inclusive education; individual assessments are provided for in sections 3 and 4, and parental involvement is a hallmark of the Bill. Deputies, both on the Opposition and in my own party, pointed to weaknesses in participation and parental involvement, and we have tabled several amendments to further strengthen provisions in this area. Remedies for parents who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a process are also amply and explicitly provided for in the Bill through the appeals system, indeed, there is an appeals system for practically everything in the Bill. The education plans and assessments of children are based on the progressive achievements of the children themselves, while the point concerning equality of access is a cornerstone of the Bill.

My second major reason for rejecting the amendment is based on the belief that the purpose of the Bill is to confer rights and impose duties on people. It is intended to apply in a very tangible way to our citizens and their activities. That is already included in the Bill and to include the list of principles proposed by the Deputy would not add to the total of legally enforceable rights children with disabilities will enjoy once the Bill is enacted. While the amendment is laudable, it is fully catered for within the Bill. For that reason, I will not accept it.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thought for a moment, given the Minister's positive start, that he would accept the amendment but, unfortunately, I was wrong. I support the amendment. The proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) are very important. Paragraph (a) states: “legislation in the area of education of persons with disabilities must be based on international human rights standards”, while paragraph (b) states: “the overall objective of such legislation must be equal access to effective and adequate levels of education”. I cannot see how anyone could have a problem with this.

The bottom line is that paragraph (a) refers to those children in the State who are not being accorded their civil rights or liberties. Think of some of the cases mentioned. Children with autism are being offered a very low level of services. Some of the schools are being threatened with closure over the next few months. Children are having to accept services away from their homes in different parts of the island. I do not find that acceptable, and the Minister should not find it so either. There is also the sad case of children with disabilities who have been out of school for the last few months because services are not available for them. I do not accept that they are having their human rights vindicated. The amendment gives them, their parents and their families more clout.

With regard to the proposed paragraph (e), it is essential that, in all decisions on children with disabilities, parental involvement be a respected right and part of the solution in terms of services. I urge the Minister to reconsider. Groups such as the Human Rights Commission have a very credible role in international and national rights. We have a duty to support the amendment.

Mr. Stanton

I hear what the Minister is saying, but it might do no harm to include some of this in the Bill as a road map. The amendment begins by stating: "It is hereby declared that in enacting this Act, the Oireachtas has had regard to the following principles". This appears to be retrospective. Paragraph (a) states: “legislation in the area of education of persons with disabilities must be based on international human rights standards”. The Minister said that much of this is implicit in the Bill. It might be useful to make it more explicit. Perhaps the Minister could work on the amendment and reintroduce an altered version on Report Stage in the same spirit as companies which, when putting forward their underlying philosophy, introduce a mission statement.

Mr. F. McGrath

We need some vision in this country.

Mr. Stanton

It is a little like that. We need the vision of a mission statement underpinning everything. Perhaps the Minister might usefully take the amendment and incorporate it into the Bill in some way as its mission statement.

Ms Enright

I support the broad thrust of the proposals put forward by Deputy O'Sullivan. The Deputy referred to matters being implicit and explicit. Everything in legislation should be explicit, and the less open to individual interpretation, the better. In that regard, having a declaration of guiding principles which informs us all in our attitude and approach to the Bill would be of enormous benefit. It would not do any harm. The majority of the proposals are worthwhile. I might tweak one of them, but in general I support them. It is a shame that the Minister cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Gogarty

As Deputy Stanton said, a mission statement is the way to proceed. I am not sure whether it should be inserted at the start of section 2 or at the commencement of the Bill. That is for Deputy O'Sullivan to decide. Whatever the Minister says about them already being included in the Bill, it is a good idea to state at the outset the principles guiding the Oireachtas in enacting the legislation. It would not cause any harm because they are not necessarily binding, although we would attempt to adhere to them.

Mr. Dennehy

I accept the Minister's argument although I have a slight difficulty with the principle set out in paragraph (c), which states: “education should be provided within the mainstream education service or in the least restrictive alternative”. For many parents the jury is still out on this. Although they may be in a minority among the organised groups, many parents have huge concerns about attempting to mainstream their children. While I take Deputy O’Sullivan’s point about repeating verbatim what one of the groups recommended, I would like this principle to be further debated before it is accepted in the legislation. I assume it will not be accepted.

There is still a big agenda on this issue. It is one thing to speak of the global situation and the involvement of the big groups but, as Deputy Finian McGrath will be aware, when an attempt is made to deal with individual goals, many people have concerns. However, if the amendment is not accepted there is no need to dwell on this aspect.

Ms O’Sullivan

I thank my colleagues on all sides for their support on this amendment. A statement of general principles would be useful, although I do not have a problem on where it should be included. If he is not willing to include it in the Bill perhaps the Minister might provide for its inclusion in the explanatory memorandum. Either way, it is important that these principles be enunciated. It might help the Minister in his dealings with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who seems to have an aversion to talking about rights-based legislation. If the Minister is willing to include a statement of principles in this legislation, perhaps we may then expect some respect for a rights-based approach to the disabilities Bill.

Chairman

Minister, with three minutes to go you have to make mission statements.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. In case by not reiterating it I am conceding the fact, I wish to repeat that all of the rights outlined in the amendment are fully met within the Bill as it stands. The Bill, including the Title, goes into great detail in this regard. The Title opens with the words: "An Act to provide, having regard to the common good, for each of the following, namely,". It refers to further provision for children with disabilities, parental involvement and giving people the opportunity to participate fully in society. All of this, and the provision of the National Council for Special Education, are included. Furthermore, many of the objectives set out in the amendment are already contained in the Bill. They can be found in every section. For example, equality of access is included in section 12.

I have received very strong advice that these types of clauses can create legal uncertainty in a Bill. It is better to achieve objectives in the individual sections while adhering closely to the principles, as they are outlined in the amendment. In view of this I am not of a mind to accept the amendment. However, to be helpful to Deputy O'Sullivan and because of the spirit in which the amendment is put forward, I will have a look at the Title to see if one or two of the matters raised can be included, although they may not be as explicitly stated as they are in the amendment. If the Deputy wishes to leave the matter with me until Report Stage I will look at it in the meantime.

Ms O’Sullivan

I will not press the amendment. I hope the Minister will take account of the fact that the Human Rights Commission recommended this, not a humble Deputy from the Opposition.

Mr. N. Dempsey

I do not discriminate against anyone, whether they are individuals or groups.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 2.

Chairman

Amendment No. 27 is out of order as it involves a charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 27 not moved.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The select committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 January 2004.