Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 23 Jun 2009

Vol. 685 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Fiscal Policy.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Judicial independence is a critical feature of any democracy. The independence of the Judiciary is enshrined in Article 35.2 and subsequent articles of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Article 35.5 provides that a judge's remuneration should not be reduced during his continuance in office. In light of this when the Oireachtas enacted the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill we specifically excluded judges, military judges and the President from the provisions relating to the pension levy. At the time there were widespread calls for judges to be included in the pension levy. I welcomed the announcement at the time by the Chief Justice that a voluntary scheme would be agreed between the Revenue Commissioners and the Judiciary. However, it was revealed recently that apparently, only 19 of the 148 judges have thus far agreed to voluntarily take part in the scheme. I presume this number does not include military judges. Nevertheless it is most disappointing from the point of view of the Oireachtas. It is also damning to the Judiciary. Failure to sign up unanimously to the voluntary agreement will affect the independence and respect of the Judiciary a good deal more than any forced pay cut.

I fully acknowledge the Judiciary cannot be in hock to anyone and especially not to the House. It must be completely independent. However, it must also have due regard, as it does on a daily basis, for the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. I acknowledge and welcome the statement by the Chief Justice that he fully expects more judges to join the scheme. The Chief Justice further stated not much time had elapsed since the scheme details were sent to judges. It is critical from the point of view of democracy and the Judiciary that judges sign up fully to the scheme.

The Constitution does not foresee the introduction of a pension levy, such as that recently introduced, as an attack on judicial independence. It is similar to an income tax in that it has broad application. However, I condemn the comments of Deputy Enda Kenny today in which he made a similar argument but stated that the Government made a political decision to exclude judges from the levy. That was a disgraceful remark reminiscent of his allegations about an Anglo Irish Bank golden circle. He was against the pension levy at one stage but now it seems he is for it. If the advice from the Attorney General is absolute, as the Taoiseach today acknowledged, surely there is a case for a constitutional referendum, not to allow judicial pay cuts — I do not believe we should have these — but to allow broad based levies, such as the pension levy to apply to judges if they apply to everyone else in a particular sector.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy John Curran)

The Deputy has raised a matter on the Adjournment that has been the subject of much comment in recent days. There are two aspects to the matter. First, the question of amending the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 to make the Judiciary subject to the deduction, commonly known as the public service pension levy, introduced by section 2 of the Act. Second, the issue of an amendment to Article 35.5 of the Constitution. On the first question the Government's decision not to make the members of the Judiciary subject to the public service pension levy was made on the advice of the Attorney General. The advice had regard to Article 35.5 of the Constitution which is entirely clear. In express terms, it imposes a prohibition on the reduction of a judge's remuneration during the judge's continuance in office. A judge's remuneration has been interpreted in previous decisions as including pension rights. The levy is without doubt a reduction in remuneration and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 makes clear it is not a tax.

The salary of every judge at the time of appointment is clearly subject to income tax at rates to be determined from time to time. The imposition of income tax does not involve a change in the terms of appointment or an alteration in the remuneration to which a judge is entitled because that remuneration is always subject to tax. The protection in Article 35.5 provides for the financial independence of the Judiciary, a key component of judicial independence. Judges are not employees of the Government or of Government bodies. They are also specifically prevented by the Constitution from holding any other paid appointment.

The second question posed by the Deputy is whether there should be a Constitutional referendum to amend Article 35.5 to allow the Judiciary to be subject to the pension-related deduction. Again, this is an idea that has been well ventilated in recent days. The Deputy acknowledges the importance of maintaining judicial independence. However, it is difficult to see how a referendum on this issue could take place without the risk of doing some violence to that judicial independence.

The independence of the Judiciary is enshrined in the Constitution for very good reason. Financial independence is integral to this independence. The Judiciary ensures that the Constitution is respected and the laws are upheld. To do this effectively, it must be independent of the Executive and of the Legislature. To interfere with that independence in any way would have extremely adverse and unforeseen results and would undermine an essential protection of the rule of law which in turn is vital to the protection of citizens' rights.

The Constitution deliberately does not permit the Executive to reduce judges' remuneration, notwithstanding that, like citizens generally, judges are subject to taxation. It is with this fundamental principle in mind that the Government has no plans to amend the Constitution to provide that the remuneration of judges could be reduced by way of the pension levy.

The Chief Justice has made it clear that he expects strong and continuous participation by judges in the scheme put in place by the Revenue Commissioners. I welcome the Judiciary's initiative in this regard and I am pleased the Chief Justice has high expectations of that scheme. This arrangement with the Revenue Commissioners means the judges can pay an equivalent amount monthly, quarterly or on an annual basis. The Judiciary as a whole is understood not to have been notified of the arrangement until 11 May and any suggestion that judges have refused to make a voluntary contribution is not correct. The Government has always respected the independence of the Judiciary and the constitutional protections provided in respect of that independence. It is essential that we continue to do so.

Special Educational Needs.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

I stated previously in the House that I welcome the principle of introducing a preschool year for children. All the research indicates that children do better when they have had that opportunity. It is particularly valuable for disadvantaged children. Disadvantage comes in many forms. It may be financial or social disadvantage or due to poor quality parenting. All these children would benefit from such a scheme.

I want to speak tonight about a group of children who will not benefit and these are children with special needs. In some cases such children have significant obstacles to overcome if they are to benefit from later educational opportunities. The contribution a year in preschool can make for these children is of great value in helping them to cope with either mainstream school or a special needs school, if this is what is appropriate. Under the new scheme this is the one group which will not benefit. They will be excluded from the preschool year and may be excluded from playschool opportunities altogether for that particular year.

As the scheme is currently devised, from September 2010 it will only pay the preschool providers for a 15-hour week. For many special needs children, 15 hours is not a possibility as it is too long a time for them. Even if it is not too long, they will need a special needs assistant in order to attend playschool. The current practice is for them to attend for whatever period of time the special needs assistant is available to them. The special needs assistants' hours are being reduced. I am not aware of any case where a child had an assistant for 15 hours. The reality is they have no opportunity to attend because the State will only pay for them if they attend for 15 hours.

They cannot attend without assistance so the most disadvantaged children will be the only children who will not be able to benefit from the scheme. The scheme is not just inequitable, but it is daft and very short-sighted in that it will only build up problems and more expense for the future and great frustration for both the children and their parents.

From the perspective of the playschool providers, it will not be possible for them to allocate their limited school places to children who will only turn up for three or four hours a week and where the State will only pay for those who attend for 15 hours a week. The private playschool sector is facing significant upheavals in its business, moving virtually overnight from a situation where they were independent businesses tailoring their hours and times to the needs of their customers to becoming customers themselves of a one-size-fits-all State monopoly.

I do not know what forethought went into devising this scheme because it is fraught with issues which have been raised before. If all the children who are eligible for this scheme — numbering between 70,000 and 80,000 — turned up looking for a place in January, only a fraction of places will be available. I do not know how Dublin playschools will survive because the fee being offered is way below anything being charged in the Dublin area.

A scheme that effectively excludes children with special needs cannot be introduced. The irony is that the very Department which recognises the need for special needs assistants for disabled children attending school is the very Department which recognises the need for a preschool facility, yet this Department has devised a scheme which excludes the group that need it most and who would benefit most.

The Minister of State knows the additional burden and stress and worry that a special needs child places on a young, struggling family. Many families are discovering now that their child will not benefit from this scheme. In the coming months more families will discover that the scheme does not seem to accommodate their children.

I have to believe that this anomaly was not intentional and that the Minister will amend the scheme to ensure that disabled children can avail of it. I have to believe the Minister will amend it in a way that does not require either the preschool providers or the children's families to take the hit because many families are wondering whether they will have to pay. They wonder if their children will be allowed into the playschools because the limited number of places will inevitably be given to those who will attend for 15 hours a week.

There is still time to retrieve this situation and I ask the Minister of State to do so as quickly as possible and cause the least amount of anxiety and stress to the families and parents of these disabled children.

Deputy John Curran

I will reply on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney.

I wish to reaffirm the Government's commitment to people with disabilities and to the national disability strategy and its long-term goals and objectives which we will continue to pursue in the coming years in partnership with all the key stakeholders.

The early childhood care and education scheme is being introduced from January 2010 as a free scheme to benefit children in the key developmental period prior to commencing school. The scheme will allow eligible children to avail of a free preschool place in the year before they commence school. The scheme is open to all private and voluntary preschool services which are notified to the Health Service Executive or registered with the Irish Montessori Educational Board. Participating services will be required to provide an educational programme consistent with the principles of Siolta and appropriate to the age of participating children. As a free preschool year, participating services must agree to provide the service in return for a capitation fee of some €2,450 per annum.

The scheme is a general one and participating services will be required to make reasonable accommodation for children with special needs in accordance with the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004. However, the scheme takes account of a number of issues to accommodate children with special needs. While the age range in which children will qualify for the scheme is, generally, between three years three months and four years six months on 1 September each year, exceptions are allowed where a child has been assessed by the HSE as having a special need which will delay his or her entry to primary school. In such cases, the preschool year relevant to such children will be taken as their qualifying year. Additionally, the general requirement that a child would be expected to attend four or five days each week will not apply to children with special needs where a shorter week would be more appropriate to their needs. Where a preschool service is a specialist one providing a service to children with special needs and additional flexibility in the arrangements for the scheme is required, this will also be considered.

Since 2005, the Government has provided significant additional resources for services and supports for effecting real change in the development of services for people with disabilities and as a demonstration of the ongoing commitments to people with disabilities, an additional €10 million was provided in the 2009 budget to continue the development of services for children with disabilities. A critical element of the ongoing development of disability services is the requirement to provide financial support for the development and implementation of a wide range of services provided to children with disabilities.

In the current challenging economic environment, there is a responsibility on all publicly funded services to review the way in which services are delivered and ensure resources are used to maximum effect. The HSE and voluntary disability service providers are working together to ensure that all of the existing resources available for specialist disability services are used in the most effective manner possible. This involves a collaborative approach at local health office level in dealing with arising situations, development of criteria for identifying needs in a consistent manner nationally, identification of capacity to increase provision within existing resources, reviewing existing service arrangements in the context of appropriate response and service efficiency and developing innovative responses to meet requirements.

There is no additional capitation available under the ECCE scheme to preschools on foot of having children with special needs. However, ad hoc arrangements have been made in some local health offices utilising home support-personal assistant resources to support children with specific difficulties accessing mainstream preschool services. The provision of such supports is dependent upon the assessed needs of the child and the resources available. In the current challenging financial environment, there are many competing priorities and the HSE is obliged to use the resources available to it in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The Department of Health and Children and the HSE are working closely to manage the considerable budgetary challenges in this regard. The cross-sectoral team on disability comprising representatives from the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Education and Science, the HSE and the National Council for Special Education will be considering the provision of educational supports to children with disabilities in the coming months. Additionally, the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will continue to fund training in the child care sector, including training courses which equip child care workers with the skills to support the integration of children with special needs into mainstream services.

Rural Transport Programme.

Deputy Michael Ring

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise the decision to suspend the transport service in seven rural areas of east and west Cork, Cavan, Sligo, Roscommon, Donegal and Laois. I cannot understand why the Government has done this. This service was established on a pilot basis in 2007. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs many times during Question Time and on each occasion he has remarked on the success of the scheme.

This decision is an attack on elderly people, who are the most vulnerable in society. In rural areas we do not have Luas, Dublin Bus or any of the transport facilities available in cities. We depend on the rural community to provide rural services. This scheme was working very well but the Minister has now withdrawn funding. Given that the scheme is so successful in the seven pilot areas I expected the Government to allocate further funding to extend it to other rural areas.

Age Action is very upset by this decision. This is the Government's third attack on elderly people this year. Its first attack was on medical cards and its second on safety alarms. In some rural areas this service provides elderly and vulnerable people with their only opportunity to get their shopping, go to bingo or to meet people. This is a major setback for rural Ireland and for the elderly.

A small amount of money was working very well. I complimented Deputy Ó Cuív and his Department on how this money was being spent. It was targeted at vulnerable groups in rural Ireland. Another service is now being taken away. Post offices have gone and Garda stations are going. Bus Éireann has announced that it will cut its services by 15%. We now expect more rural services to be taken away.

This is a shame; it is a mean and petty attack on the most vulnerable who are most in need of services, the elderly in rural Ireland. I am surprised at Deputy Ó Cuív and his Department. I cannot understand why such crucial decisions are being taken in order to save such small amounts of money. The Minister of State assures me that the safety alarm scheme will be up and running in September. I hope he and the Minister will sit down with their officials tomorrow and reverse their decision, continue the pilot transport scheme and extend it to other rural areas. The agents appointed by the State are not doing the job for rural Ireland and now the Government is also letting rural people down.

Deputy John Curran

I thank Deputy Ring for raising this important issue. The safety alarm scheme is under review. Before the recent elections, Deputy Ring asked me if the scheme was an election gimmick. We are now on the far side of the elections. The review is ongoing and the scheme will be reintroduced after the summer with new guidelines and criteria. I am glad to be able to say this after the elections.

Deputy Michael Ring

I will raise this matter on the first Question Time in September.

Deputy John Curran

I am sure the Deputy will. Applications on hand before the suspension of the scheme will continue to be processed. Deputy Ring might have noticed that approximately half of those have been cleared. I hope that gives him some confidence in the future of that scheme.

To return to the matter in hand, all of us here with an interest in rural development issues know how important an issue transport is for rural areas. The Government's rural transport programme, which is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, aims to deal with what was previously the unmet public transport needs in rural Ireland. Substantial funding of €11 million is provided to support this service under the rural transport programme.

As Minister with responsibility for rural development, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív very much welcomes the service this programme provides to our rural areas and the fact that it has been expanding its services over the years. Given his responsibility, he was also conscious of the specific issue of evening and night transport services for rural areas which he examined in conjunction with the Department of Transport, in 2007.

As a result of that consideration, the pilot rural transport night scheme was launched in 2007 and the Minister was glad to be able to fund it as a pilot exercise from within his Department. However, the Deputies will appreciate that the mainstream provision of transport services, including rural transport, is a matter for the Minister for Transport and Department of Transport and, accordingly, it was always the intention that the more limited resources of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs could be used to support this pilot initiative.

Our focus with this pilot scheme was to facilitate a limited number of the groups who already operate under the rural transport programme to run an evening and night service and to have the opportunity to look at the impact on the ground of meeting the needs of night time services in rural Ireland. The pilot service, even though operated in seven areas only, has allowed rural dwellers to get involved and participate in various activities in the evening that they may not have had the opportunity to in the scheme's absence.

The seven groups who have operated the pilot scheme were: West Cork Rural Transport; Avondhu Development Group in East Cork; Meath Accessible/Kilnaleck Community Cavan; County Sligo Leader Partnership; Tumna Shannon Development Company Roscommon; Síob Teoranta Donegal; and Laois Trip.

The Department will have provided funding of approximately €950,000 from the commencement of the pilot scheme in early summer 2007 up to 10 July next when the pilot will cease. The experience of my own Department in operating the pilot scheme, in conjunction with Pobal, who also manage the rural transport programme, has been that it has had a beneficial impact and has been endorsed by those involved in rural transport.

That is why, in the context of the pilot scheme coming to an end on 10 July next, the Minister recently met with representatives of the groups involved with the pilot scheme and with Pobal. At this meeting the groups' experiences of operating the pilot evening scheme was discussed. It discussed how it might be incorporated into the rural transport programme going forward.

There is to be further examination of this issue at a follow-up meeting this week between the groups and Pobal. Of course, the challenge will be to deliver the services within existing resources, but I should emphasise that the rural transport programme gives flexibility for the groups to identify the priority transport needs of their own areas, in terms of routes, frequency and timing of services. Neither the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, nor the Minister for Transport seeks to tell the groups what services they should provide; this is something into which they have a strong input.

Overall, Deputy Ó Cuív is glad to see the further consideration that evening services are now getting within the rural transport programme, following on from the pilot he was able to fund. Historically, services under the rural transport programme have been generally delivered between morning and late afternoon to reflect local needs prioritisation with the available resources. The Minister understands that some groups provide evening services within the rural transport programme and he would welcome changes that would further extend the service to evening-night time routes where this is both needed and possible.

Special Educational Needs.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

"Let no man write my epitaph; no man knows my motives." This is very pertinent to the current Minister for Education and Science. The parents of special needs children cannot understand his motives for removing special needs classes. My colleague, Deputy Michael Ring, spoke about rural transport and removing necessary services from the elderly. This appears to be the route the Government has taken — it is hitting the most vulnerable in society. It tried to take the medical cards from people over 70 years of age and now it is removing rural transport.

A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Special needs children are undoubtedly the most vulnerable members of our society. The removal of classes is a budgetary measure. I am disappointed the Minister is not present tonight. What will be saved by removing classes from special needs children? We take great pride in the aid we give to foreign countries, yet our own people are suffering. Not very long ago these children would have been locked away in attics and the back rooms of houses or put into mental institutions.

A special needs class is being removed from St. Oliver's national school in Killarney. I can stake all my input into political life that the school is a centre of excellence. Children travel from every corner of County Kerry and even from beyond the county boundaries to the school because it is a centre of excellence. Does the Minister realise the consequences of his action and the consequences for the children concerned? Many parents have approached me to ask that this action be stopped. Some of them are parents of children who have left St. Oliver's, gone on to mainstream secondary schools, have done well and now have jobs. Some are parents of children who are currently in St. Oliver's. I have also met parents who are seeking a place in St. Oliver's for their child, which will not be available with the removal of this class.

The principal is put in the position of having to decide who is and is not entitled to a place in this centre of excellence. That is an awful predicament. Will we have to appoint a Minister for Education and Science who has a special needs child to deal with this and to realise what is involved? Another parent called to my clinic recently. I am as tough as any man in this House but this woman brought me down to size. She told me her son is paralysed, has minor learning difficulties and is fitted with a feeding tube. She asked where her child could go when he does not get a place in St. Oliver's. I could not answer. I would hate to be in that position or for any of my constituents to be in that position.

This is due to a budgetary measure by the Minister. Where will the money be saved? The child I mentioned is entitled to one hour of special needs education per day in his national school. The centre of excellence in St. Oliver's must be retained for the people in my constituency. I am sure this is an issue in every other constituency. The savings are minimal. A child with only mild learning difficulties would be able for mainstream education if they had an I.Q. of between 50 and 70. However, this is not the case and it is up to the principal to decide who gets the places and who does not. The only savings will be in school transport. The parents of the children I am representing would be more than willing to bring their children to this centre of excellence if the class is retained.

Deputy John Curran

I thank Deputy Tom Sheahan for raising this matter and apologise on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who could not be present. I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify the position on the matter raised by the Deputy.

The Deputy will be aware that allocations to schools typically increase or decrease depending on pupil enrolment. In the case of special classes for pupils with a mild general learning disability, MGLD, the normal pupil teacher ratio that applies is 11:1. The Department of Education and Science, however, allows for a small reduction in this number and permits schools to retain a teaching post where it has a minimum of nine pupils in the class. The school in question has three special classes for MGLD. A total enrolment of 31 is required to retain the three classes. The enrolment in the three classes as returned by the school in September 2008 was 21 pupils. The minimum enrolment required to retain the third class has therefore not been fulfilled and the school no longer qualifies to retain the third special class.

The school in question appealed the Department's decision to suppress the class. The Department has considered the appeal and has advised the school that the decision to suppress the third class remains.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Shame.

Deputy John Curran

However, it would appear that some of the children who are enrolled in the MGLD classes in the school in question may fall within the low incidence disability category and may qualify for resource teaching support through the National Council for Special Education, NCSE. Officials in the Department have been in contact with the NCSE and I understand that the school has initiated contact with the special educational needs organiser, SENO, in this regard. I understand also that the SENO will convey a decision to the school as soon as this process has been completed.

The pupils in the class being suppressed will continue to receive additional teaching support through the teaching resources allocated to primary schools under the general allocation model. Schools decide how best to use this allocation based on the needs of the pupils and how to adjust their support in line with the changing needs of pupils as they mature. The Department issued a circular SP ED 02/05 to all schools to assist them in deploying the general allocation model resources.

The Department of Education and Science promotes a continuum of assessment and intervention. These interventions range from support from the classroom teacher to support from the resource/learning support teacher. Where a school considers that these interventions are not meeting the child's needs, it should seek the advice of its National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, psychologist. Schools without an assigned NEPS psychologist can avail of the scheme for commissioning psychological assessments. Advice may be also sought from the local special educational needs organiser. The Deputy will be aware of the unprecedented investment in providing supports for children with special needs in recent years. There are now about 19,000 adults in our schools working solely with children with special needs. There are more than 8,000 resource and learning support teachers in our schools, compared with just 2,000 in 1998. More than 1,000 other teachers support children in our special schools. Some 86 classes for children with mild general learning disability are being retained where there are nine children or more in these classes.

The Minister for Education and Science wishes to emphasise that priority will continue to be given to provision for children with special educational needs. The establishment of these classes for mild general learning disability pre-date many of the developments in special education policy in recent years and we now have a system for providing schools with supports for children with high incidence special needs through the general allocation model.

In raising the matter, the Deputy specifically asked whether there was a need to appoint a Minister who has a special needs child. The Minister of State responding to him tonight has been in that position and had a child in that situation who availed of mainstream education. As a conscientious parent, I did not have an opportunity to avail of this class. However, I can say that the services provided through the other supports provided me, my family and our daughter with a very positive educational experience.

I thank the Deputy again for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position with regard to this matter.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 June 2009.