Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 2001

Vol. 533 No. 3

Written Answers. - Appeal to Supreme Court.

Gay Mitchell

Ceist:

349 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the contents of a letter (details supplied) with regard to the decision by the State to appeal the Jamie Sinnott case to the Supreme Court. [9022/01]

Minister for Education and Science (Dr. Woods)

The Deputy will appreciate that I am constrained in commenting specifically on the case to which he refers due to the fact that the appeal in this matter opened in the Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court is the most appropriate forum where the legal and constitutional matters at issue can now be discussed and determined.

The High Court judgment in the case in question has raised issues that are of such fundamental importance to the education system and to the system of State administration and expenditure that they require clarification by the Supreme Court. The Government considers that it has an obligation, in the public interest, to clarify these matters and establish, in particular, precisely what is the nature and extent of the State's duty in the matter of the provision for free primary education for adults. The appeal will not affect damages which have already been paid to Jamie Sinnott and I have already put procedures in place so that all damages awarded to him on foot of the High Court judgment will be paid on an ex gratia basis as soon as possible. Irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, there is no question of these damages being refunded. Fifteen thousand pounds in special damages have also been paid to Mrs. Sinnott and will not be affected by the appeal.

There has been some misunderstanding and even misrepresentation of the Government's position on this appeal. In particular, the impression has been created that the Government wants to overturn the O'Donoghue judgment, which relates to the constitutional rights of children to a primary education, whatever their level of disability. Nothing could be further from the truth. I accept my constitutional duty, on behalf of the State, to provide for the free primary education of all children. I assure the House that I regard it as unacceptable that any parent, and particularly a parent of a child with special needs, should find it necessary to resort to litigation to secure their child's educational entitlements. This Government has presided over an unprecedented level of improvement in special education services. The number of special needs assistants supporting special needs children has been increased from less than 300 to more than 1,700. Additional resource teachers and special needs assistants are being allocated by my Department as needs are identified. I am aware that much work remains to be done.

A key development in this regard is the recent report of the planning group established in my Department to make recommendations on the arrangements that should be put in place to ensure the most effective provision of high quality co-ordinated services at all stages of education for students with disabilities.

The recommendations brought forward by the planning group provide a valuable blueprint for the further development of an effective special education service, which will remove the need for parents to have to resort to litigation to secure their entitlements. It is my intention to seek Government approval to proceed with these measures in the near future.