I compliment our spokesperson on Education, Deputy Jim Higgins, on the amount of work and research he undertook in order to introduce this Bill. Its introduction affords us a great opportunity to debate this far-reaching subject of education here and its future. Members have responded enthusiastically by their presence and contributions. It is noticeable that opportunities to speak have been fully taken up with Members having to share their time in order to do so, in itself an indication of Members' desire to have a say on educational matters.
I was somewhat disappointed with the Minister's response on the evening on which the Bill was introduced. I was more disappointed and concerned at the manner in which she contributed rather than the content of her response. Perhaps she had many other things on her mind. She said she was very glad to have been in the House to talk about education. Yet she did not want to talk about this Bill. She said there was no need for this Bill, that the House should not worry; she would produce a Green Paper, later a White Paper and, later still, an Education Bill no matter how long it would take; those were her words. Since a Green Paper was promised by the summer of 1991, a White Paper by the end of this year and the Bill shortly afterwards, it is extraordinary that there has been a Fine Gael Bill introduced without having seen any Green Paper, White Paper or Government Bill. Why is the Minister so annoyed with Deputy Jim Higgins and the Fine Gael Party in our attempt to assist her by producing this Bill and opening a debate in the House on it? For example, why did the Minister not say that this Bill was a start and that we should all sit down together and henceforth work to produce a final document for the improvement of our educational system, which all contributors to this debate so far have acknowledged is in need of a certain amount of overhaul?
Two weeks ago at the commencement of this debate, at the end of her contribution, the Minister dismissed this Bill with a wave of her hand, predicting that it would be defeated on Second Stage, thus ending the debate. Would it not have been much better had the Bill been allowed its Second Reading, allowed to progress to Committee Stage when all requisite amendments could be introduced, when the Minister would have had her input? Two weeks ago the Minister was safe in the knowledge of the support of her party and the Progressive Democrats in being successful at having the Bill defeated on its Second Reading. In the light of events since I hope she is as confident of that outcome this evening.
It is obvious that the Minister will delay the introduction of her Bill as long as possible lest any of its proposed provisions would entail cost. Since the revised Programme for Government was reached by the two Coalition parties I observe that there have been instructions given to all Government Departments to cut out all unnecessary expenditure. That means that the capital programme for education will also get the chop.
I should like now to refer to a parliamentary question I tabled to the Minister for Education on 22 October 1991 asking her when work would commence on the building of the new school at St. Joseph's, Snipe Avenue, Galway. I had this extraordinary reply:
Tenders for the proposed new school for St. Joseph's, Snipe Avenue, Galway, have been received in my Department and are being examined. This examination will be completed at the earliest possible date when the question of the placing of the contract will arise for consideration in the context of the available capital. I am not in a position, at this stage, to say when building works will commence.
That is the same school promised in Galway by the Minister and her Minister of State — whom I welcome in the Chamber this evening — before the last general election. It was subsequently delayed somewhat and reannounced before the local elections, constituting the second bite of the cherry. In the meantime the 90 pupils in that school are being taught in leaking prefabricated buildings. I am asking the Minister and Minister of State to state clearly to the parents, teachers and children when work will commence on this school. I raise this matter because of my responsibility for children with mental and physical handicap and special educational facilities. In that regard I am glad Deputy Jim Higgins has seen fit to include section 17 (c) which deals with that aspect of education and says:
(c) the recognition and maintenance of schools for the mentally and physically handicapped and the training of specialist teachers for employment in such schools;
Thereby recognising that the Minister is responsible for the care of the mentally and physically handicapped and for special education. I believe there is a crisis in the service for people with mental handicap, in that school places are impossible to obtain, some schools having no such service, and where there are such services, they are enormously under-funded. The Department of Education should be responsible for funding and maintaining the mentally handicapped services and their special educational facilities. Such provision is included in this Bill. Equally it should form part of any Bill to be introduced by the Minister at a later date.
There is too much buck-passing at present between Government Departments. For example, when one contacts the Department of Education inquiring about services for mentally handicapped pupils in schools one is told that it is the responsibility of the relevant health board; when one contacts the health board one is told it is the responsibility of the Department of Health; when one contacts the Department of Health one is told it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and, when one contacts the Department of Education, one is told it is the responsibility of the Department of Health. There was a classic example of this buck-passing in my parish in Renmore. A special class for nine handicapped children was initiated in Scoil Catríona, Renmore, as a result of a special class in Merlin Park having been closed at the end of the last school term. Yet on the first day of that class no child-care assistant was provided as had been provided for those children previously in Merlin Park.
When I inquired of the health board I was told I should contact the Department of Health; when I contacted the Department of Health I was told to contact the Department of Education; when I contacted the Department of Education I was sent back to the Department of Health. Eventually I tabled a motion at Western Health Board level when I was told the health board had no legal responsibility in the manner, that it was a matter for the Department of Health.
Subsequently I tabled a parliamentary question when I was told, and the Minister of State was quoted in the local papers as saying, that this was a matter for the Department of Health. Let somebody be responsible for children's special classes. Eventually the problem was solved by the provision of a once-off £10,000 grant for one year from the national lottery. It should not be a matter for the national lottery whether children with special needs have child care assistants and the necessary back-up. Rather it is a matter which should be legislated for in an Education Bill. Equally it should be a matter for which one Department, the Department of Education, is responsible.
Where it is proposed to integrate children with special needs into an ordinary school it is essential that the necessary child care assistants and proper back-up service be provided. If not, children would be better catered for in special schools. Parents should be very wary of integration proposals in circumstances in which written agreements on child care assistants and back-up services are not provided. In any Education Bill the children with special needs should be provided for and the Department of Education only should be responsible for that. In addition, each area should be provided with a special school, each class having a qualified teacher and trained assistants with a ratio of 1:10, one teacher to every ten pupils. In the case of pupils with multiple handicap such as autistic/deaf with a mental handicap the ratio should be 1:5, one teacher to every 5 pupils, in that extremely structured supervision is essential in such cases.