In 1987 Paul O'Donoghue was one of a group of young children receiving physiotherapy and occupational therapy at Cork spastic clinic. In November 1987 he was diagnosed as suffering from severe mental handicap. He was offered a conductive education service for two hours per week instead of the pre-school facilities provided for children who, though physically handicapped, are not mentally disabled. From that time his mother felt Paul was discriminated against in terms of various educational facilities. This led to the judgment which is the subject of this debate. The Constitution states in Article 42.4 that the State shall provide for free primary education. Following on this, in his High Court judgment in the Paul O'Donoghue case in 1993 Mr. Justice Rory O'Hanlon stated:
It appears to me that it gives rise to a constitutional obligation on the part of the State to provide for free primary education for this group of children in as full and as positive a manner as it has done for all other children in the community.
I put it to the Minister that the phrase "this group of children" refers to children with disabilities similar to those of Paul O'Donghue. Mr. Justice O Hanlon further stated:
I am of the opinion that it is not sufficient for the respondents [the State] to grant as a matter of grace and concession educational benefits which the applicant [Paul O'Donoghue] is entitled to claim as of right. The demands of justice must first of all be satisfied. That which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.
I am informed that when in Opposition as spokesperson on education, the Minister, Deputy Martin, criticised his predecessor for creating a two-tier system of education by spending £42 million on free third-level education for the capable while at the same time pleading scarce resources when faced with spending a few million pounds in educating the less capable.
On 26 March I tabled a question to the Minister for Education and Science seeking the proposals, if any, he has to discharge in full the State's obligation arising from the O'Donoghue-High Court judgment. The final paragraph of the Minister's reply reads:
I am pleased to inform the Deputy that the necessary educational provision is being made available to the child in question and is available to other children with similar disabilities.
However — and this is where clarity is required — my information is that only 462 of the approximate 3,000 severely and profoundly mentally handicapped children are in school. I am informed the number does not include other disabled children, especially autistic children, not in school. This discrepancy is disturbing. The reaction of senior members of the association for the severely and profoundly mentally handicapped to this parliamentary question ranges from disbelief to outrage.
The Minister, when in Opposition, milked this issue, in what appears to be the most opportunist and reckless way. The baton has long since passed to the Minister, the buck stops with him. Is he guilty of cynical hypocrisy or will he deliver in full on the position he assumed in his previous incarnation? Is the Minister categorically stating the necessary educational provision is being provided for all children with severe or profound mental handicap. I eagerly await the Minister of State's reply.