JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Jan 2003

Vol. 1 No. 1

Special Needs Education: Departmental Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome officials from the Department of Education and Science to our first meeting of the new year. Before we commence, I remind people that Members are covered by privilege but, unfortunately, others appearing before the committee are not. Likewise, it is a requirement that the committee exercise considerable care in referring to matters or individuals who are not present. It is a convention of the Houses that we do not make derogatory statements about such people.

I invite Mr. Kilroy to begin the presentation. We have allowed 15 to 20 minutes, which I hope is reasonable. Members already have a copy of the presentation.

Mr. Liam Kilroy

I thank the Chairman and I am pleased to be here. I shall first introduce my two colleagues: Ms. Lee MacCurtain is the director of the National Educational Psychological Service, which is based in North Frederick Street; and Gabriel Harrison is assistant chief inspector with particular responsibility for special education services and is based in the Department's offices in Tullamore. My name is Liam Kilroy and I am the principal officer of the special education section based in Athlone. What I propose to do, with the agreement of the Chairman, is to make a short presentation based on the document I have circulated to Members, followed perhaps by a discussion on any issues of interest to members of the committee.

In terms of provision for children with special education needs, the response models fall under three basic headings. Provision can be made in special dedicated schools or in special dedicated classes attached to ordinary schools. Another level of provision, referred to as integrated placements, involves children being placed in ordinary schools on an integrated basis where they would have support from the resource teacher or the special needs assistant service.

Decisions on placements are made on the basis of the professionally assessed needs of the individual child and having regard to parental wishes. The policy of the Department is to facilitate, to the maximum possible extent, integration of special needs children in ordinary schools. There are 108 special schools at present. Generally, the special schools would be certified as being dedicated to a particular disability category, although in some cases special schools dedicated to one category would possibly have some extra classes catering for another group. All these schools enjoy special reduced pupil-teacher ratios. The ratios extend from a maximum of 11:1 in the case of children with mild general learning disabilities to 6:1 in the case of children with autism or severe/profound general learning disabilities. The children are also supported by the special needs assistant service. Children attending special schools also attract special increased rates of capitation funding and I have set out details of some of the rates which are applicable. The rates vary in accordance with the category of disability involved and apply to all special schools situations.

There are more than 500 special classes attached to ordinary schools at present. Children attending the special classes enjoy the same levels of support that are applicable to the special schools, with reduced pupil-teacher ratios, special rates of capitation, etc. Children attending special schools and classes also avail of the special schools transport service, including the special escort service which provides escorts on school buses.

The third group is comprised of children who attend ordinary schools on an integrated basis. This area has been subject to significant development in recent years. The Government decided in October 1998 that all children with special needs in the primary system should now have an automatic entitlement to a response to their needs, irrespective of their level of need or location.

This development has been particularly beneficial to children in integrated settings. The support given to such children would normally take the form of resource teacher or special needs assistant support, depending on the assessed needs of the individual child. To illustrate the impact this development has had, I recall that prior to the decision of October 1998 there were approximately 100 resource teachers in place in the primary system in the country. The number now is approximately 2,300. When that decision was taken in 1998, we had approximately 300 special needs assistants in the country. At present, there are approximately 3,800 full-time and a further 1,000 part-time special needs assistants. There has been a huge growth in this area of support.

There are some children who, because of their particular disabilities and medical needs, are unable to attend school for prolonged periods. We have a home-based tuition service to support such children under which funding is provided to facilitate the delivery of education in the home or other suitable location for a child who is not physically capable of attending school for long periods. We also have a special equipment fund for children with a disability who require the support of special equipment in order to help them gain maximum benefit from the education system. Funding is provided for such items as braillers, CCTVs, touch-talkers and, increasingly, computer hardware and software. I have appended to the note details of the levels of activity taking place and funding being provided under each of those headings.

With regard to children with autism, prior to late 1998 the educational needs of such children were not even recognised. In November 1998 the Department formally recognised the distinct educational needs of children with autism. Prior to that date, such children were generally catered for in facilities for children with emotional and behavioural disorders or those catering for children with mild general learning disabilities. There was no specific dedicated provision.

Since the decision was taken to provide dedicated facilities for children with autism, we have established special classes attached to ordinary schools and sometimes special schools. Each class caters for a maximum of six children with autism and has a minimum of one teacher and two special needs assistants to support the class. Additional special needs assistant support will be provided if the needs of the children or of an individual child require it. The number of such classes is increasing on an ongoing basis as further needs are identified and provision is put in place.

In some cases, in recent times, parents of children with autism have rejected what we refer to as the school-based model, the special class attached to the school, and sought instead to have their children's educational needs addressed through stand-alone facilities dedicated to the applied behaviour analysis model of response. The Department has sought to accommodate the wishes of these parents by funding a number of pilot projects using this model. The first such project was established in Cork in 1999. It is referred to as the CABAS - comprehensive applied behaviour analysis for schooling - project and currently caters for 30 children on a five year pilot basis. Two further projects have since been established, one in Kill, County Kildare and one in Kilbarrack, Dublin, also applying the ABA model. The Department is considering applications for a number of other such projects. The operation of these projects is being evaluated by the Department's inspectorate. The outcome of the review will inform the Department's view of how the models should be developed in the future, including how the question of applied behaviour analysis models can be incorporated into the overall scheme of provision.

The report of the task force on autism is a comprehensive and detailed document which deals with a very wide range of issues, including identification, prevalence rates, procedures for the assessment of children, training for those dealing with the children concerned, the models of education and health care responses that should be in place, and structural and legislative issues relevant to the provision of services for the children involved. A multifaceted package of measures is required.

To date, the Department has taken a number of steps in relation to provision for children with autism. However, in terms of the wider agenda brought forward by the task force, our key focus to date has been in two areas, first, in advancing the fundamental structural and legislative measures necessary to underpin the development and delivery of services to persons with a disability, including children with autism, in line with the task force's recommendations, and, second, the National Council for Special Education which is of particular importance. Its establishment has been approved by Government. It will have a local area presence and play a key role in the development and delivery of services for persons with special needs, including children with autism. It will have a research and advisory role and be able to establish expert groups to consider specific areas of special needs provision. It will also establish a consultative forum to allow for an input from the partners in education and other interested parties.

An important element of the council's structure will be that it will have locally-based special needs organisers who will be responsible for ensuring the delivery of appropriate responses to children with special needs at local level and who, in particular, will be accessible at local level. Services are centralised and all queries come to the special education section of the Department. The special needs organisers will be responsible for ensuring an efficient and effective response to special needs in the location in which they are identified. A chief executive officer designate has been appointed to the council. An order for its establishment will be brought forward in February which will be followed by advertising of the special educational needs organiser posts with a view to getting them in place.

The other important element in development is the question of new legislation. The Minister has announced his intention to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to confirm the rights and entitlements of persons with a disability, including persons with autism. This legislation will be based on the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2002, published by the former Minister for Education and Science prior to the dissolution of the Dáil. Its objective is to provide a statutory guarantee of education services for persons with a disability, including persons with autism. It will provide a clear and enforceable statement in law on the rights of children and adults who, because of a disability, including autism, have special educational needs and propose a structure which will guarantee their education.

The Department is engaged in a consultation process on the Bill, as originally published, with a view to obtaining comments and proposals from interested parties. I have appended to the document a list of parties who have made submissions in relation to the Bill and some of the issues they have raised. I will leave it at that and address further issues in discussion.

Chairman

Thank you. I regret the background noise which is coming from one of the monitors broadcasting the proceedings at another committee. We have requested that it be turned off.

Is there anything Mr. Harrison or MsMacCurtain would like to add before we proceed to questions? The practice has been that the spokespersons for the principal parties speak first. I will, therefore, call on Deputies Enright and O'Sullivan first. We also have representatives of the non-aligned group. Is it agreed to take questions from Deputies Enright and O'Sullivan, hear a response and then proceed to the other spokespersons and members of the joint committee? Agreed.

Deputy Enright

I welcome the representatives from the Department of Education and Science. I appreciate you are all busy people, but the time allotted today to discuss this issue is very short. The report of the task force on autism contains more than 400 pages and we could do with a month to discuss it, not to mention an hour and a half. I ask that the joint committee allocate a day on which the representatives from the Department can return to the committee to discuss the report in detail. It deserves that at the very least in order that we can properly examine the whole issue.

I will switch back and forth between the two areas rather than deal with them individually. I have some questions and comments. TheO'Donoghue judgment in 1993 placed an onus on the State to provide appropriate education for all children. It needs to be stated that this does not mean a child with special needs should just attend a special needs school. We must ensure the school and its services meet the child's needs. This presents a difficulty. I am pleased that special teams are to be set up with a multifaceted approach to bring together all the different groups. This cannot happen soon enough.

Children are graduating from special needs schools with nowhere to go. Three children in my area have finished in St. Anne's special school and have nowhere to further their education. That problem needs to be addressed. The main difficulty in this area is the lack of an overlap between the responsibilities of the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children. The experience of those involved on the ground is that there are no proper structures in place. I am sure there is liaison at many levels with the representatives present, as officials in the Department, but the closer one gets to local level the less efficient the systems become. People are finding that they are falling between two stools. Instead of dedicating time to the care of their children, parents are dedicating their time to dealing with their health boards, the Department of Education and Science and their representatives to try to have services provided for their children.

On the question of Dr. Bacon's report in 2001, in response to a question from me the Minister said 175 professional therapy training places to tackle the shortage of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists would be provided. Did that intake take place in full? It is my understanding that it did not and I wonder if the representatives have a different response on when that intake will take place in full.

The Minister also stated in reply to a parliamentary question that the national educational psychological service would ensure its psychologists were made aware of children with autistic spectrum disorder as they entered schools. What is the timeframe for this facility being available and in how many areas, if any, is it currently operated? We are back to the same situation in that the representatives do not have responsibility for children prior to the time they enter the primary school system. Therefore, I do not understand how their psychologists can be made aware of a disorder when Montessori teachers and other teachers at that level are not trained sufficiently to recognise that it is present. That is an important point.

At what stage can we expect intervention education plans to be put in place? What is the timeframe for this? The Minister has said the Department has been focusing on structuring legislative measures to underpin the development of services for persons with autism in line with the task force recommendations. What legislation is that? I realise the Disability Bill has yet to be brought forward, but are other legislative measures envisaged or will everything be encompassed in that Bill? When will we see it being put in place?

It is generally accepted - it is certainly accepted in the task force report - that early intervention is the key to helping those with ASD return to mainstream education. Some studies have shown that if the intervention takes place by age three or four years, at least 50% should be able to return to mainstream education by the age of ten years. Age six years or thereabouts is considered to be the most critical period in respect of the development of the children concerned, but the health boards and the Department are letting many fall through the gap in that they are not being identified.

The report states at page 135 that if the recommendations of the task force are to be realised, the implementation of early education policy must be afforded priority that has previously not been seen. How does the Department intend to address this? Generally speaking, children do not attend primary school until the age of five years. If they have this disorder, it has to be diagnosed in the first year in school, but that is not happening in many instances. It may not be as apparent to the teacher at that early stage, or the parents in some instances. If the Department has no responsibility for children up to that point, how will the problem be addressed? That question needs to be answered.

I do not intend this to be a political point, but in terms of the way responsibility is structured, it goes from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Education and Science while the children are in primary and second level. Once they leave special schools and return to residential care, it comes back to the Department of Health and Children. To those involved on the ground it appears to be a case of one section passing the buck and hoping it will stop with the other Department in terms of saving costs.

A gentleman who has a 40 year old daughter contacted me - this point deals with early intervention. The girl concerned was placed in a psychiatric institution because there were no other facilities in place. She was actually tied up in straitjackets for long periods of her life. She left the psychiatric hospital recently, but up to that time she was in solitary confinement. Her father said she had been left in those conditions because she was autistic and did not comprehend the need to comply with the behavioural system in operation in the institution. He said she did not have an intellectual disability but a high IQ. He also says that her anger is now so intense she tears up all her clothes, shoes, etc. and lately has been pulling out her teeth with her hands. He further says he has rational discussions with her on a weekly basis about these matters to try to persuade her to stop but to no avail. He says while his daughter was brain damaged at birth and considered mildly autistic, she is now moderately autistic at least. She is also suffering from other serious mental conditions. He says they have turned her into a monster. That is the life she has to lead and her father has to cope with as an elderly man who is now looking after her on a full-time basis. We cannot allow other children to be consigned to that type of future. That is the reason it is so important the issue is dealt with urgently.

Does the Department of Education and Science know the national prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder? How many children suffer from it? Do the representatives believe the report findings that it is on the increase? What are their views on this? What training is provided for teachers and special needs assistants who have a child in their class with autistic spectrum disorder? My understanding is that special needs assistants are not being trained in this area. One gentleman who has a son with autism was given a response from the Department to the effect that it only paid for them, that it did not employ them. Such a response is neither acceptable nor sufficient. There is very little point in having a special needs assistant if he or she does not have the qualifications necessary to look after the children concerned. What is the current policy for pre-schools which have children with ASD given the importance of early intervention?

Parents should receive formal education from the Department to help them help their children. This is something that merits consideration, especially in the light of the setting up of multidisciplinary teams. Many parents do not have the necessary training. Some have the time, energy and ability to look after their children but not every parent has the necessary skills.

I ask the representatives for their comments on the setting up of the Middletown centre for autism in County Armagh. None of us wants to be critical of the provision of a crème de la crème service, which the Middletown centre has the potential to be, but it is a little like teaching a child to drink champagne before they are weaned off the bottle. We are providing a centre of excellence nationally, yet those involved on the ground are totally frustrated at the lack of assistance available to them. We are providing their children with the opportunity of going to Armagh for various courses, of which some are three day courses - the intention is that there will be ten week courses - and returning to their homes where there are few, if any, services available to them. Children with autism in my health board area - I accept this is not the responsibility of the representatives present - are getting one hour’s speech therapy per year. They may as well not get it at all. It is farcical. The Department is responsible for setting up the centre to which it is bringing parents and children and showing them how good it can be, yet when they return home, they see that very little is being provided on the ground for them. It is certainly a situation of the cart being put before the horse. We have to provide facilities on the ground before we provide a huge national facility such as the one in Armagh. I would compare it to my opposition to the national stadium. A national stadium was being provided without putting in place facilities on the ground. In general terms, I support the setting up of such a centre after we have addressed the issues on the ground. I will ask the Minister to give much consideration to this because the view of those involved on the ground is that they want the needs of their children addressed at local level before they are addressed in a centre of thiskind.

Chairman

While a number of questions and points have been raised, we will hear from Deputy O'Sullivan before we hear the answers.

Deputy O’Sullivan

Deputy Enright has asked a number of questions to which I would like answers also. I welcome the representatives from the Department of Education and Science and thank them for their presentation.

Deputy Enright referred to diagnosis and assessment which are crucial issues for parents. From dealing with parents and reading the report of the task force, it seems we have made little progress in terms of co-ordination, which is crucial for parents. Parents want early diagnosis if any of their children have educational difficulties or developmental problems. It is crucial to get this part right initially. There is still confusion about whose job it is to diagnose a problem if a parent, teacher or general practitioner suspects something is wrong. Parents are still not sure how to proceed and often must initiate proceedings. We must get this right as soon as possible to enable early and clear diagnosis. Parents must be given a clear path to follow.

The report of the task force states a parent of a nine year old boy said the assessment procedure was piecemeal, with different professionals making separate reports and filing separate lists of recommendations. The report makes various recommendations in relation to autism and other disorders. What progress has been made in clarifying the responsibilities of the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science? What happens if a parent believes there is a problem with a child? That needs to be clarified.

Deputy Enright also referred to children of a pre-school age. The task force report makes recommendations, particularly in relation to such children and the direct responsibilities of the Department of Education and Science. There is a proposal that the Department should have responsibility within the school system for providing a service for the children concerned. That is the most important point on which to focus to ensure children are helped at the earliest possible stage to give them the best possible chance of benefiting from the services provided. I hope I get a precise response because parents are concerned about this issue.

Deputy Enright asked a number of questions I wanted to ask about the progress being made in providing the service. As regards the importance of early diagnosis, many children were not diagnosed at an early stage. I acknowledge that progress has been made in this area only recently. Many young people have not benefited from the type of help we hope will be provided for young children in the future.

The presence of Kathy Sinnott at the meeting this morning highlights the fact that many young people need help beyond the age of 18 years. What progress has been made in that regard? I have been made aware that other young people at third level institutions are experiencing difficulties in getting the type of support they need for their disabilities. I am talking about young deaf people who need support and others who suffer from dyslexia and need someone to take notes for them.

As regards the excellent task force report, what has been done in terms of monitoring the timeframe for the implementation of the recommendations? The size and scope of such reports can often be daunting. While it is important that the report is comprehensive, it is equally important that it is addressed methodically and that progress is monitored.

Deputy Enright also referred to the issue of therapists. I know there has been some delay in training the people we need and that the health boards and educational establishments have been making efforts to recruit staff abroad. Deputy Enright asked about courses in Ireland. I would like to know about recruiting specialists abroad for young people who need speech therapy but do not have access to such a service.

As regards the Disability Bill and the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill, the second Bill was meant to be published before Christmas. I regret that they have not been published. I respect the fact that there must be discussion and consultation but that took place before the original Bills were published and then withdrawn. It is important to introduce and discuss the legislation. Can the representatives from the Department clarify when the two Bills will be published? I know only one of them is the responsibility of the Department, but I am sure it is involved in consultation about both. We need legislation to back up the rights in the Constitution. The sooner the Bills are published, the quicker we will be able to provide services in schools and homes, where that is appropriate.

Perhaps the representatives will indicate how the ABA model will be made available to those who do not live in the parts of the country where it has been provided.

Mr. Kilroy

I will try to address as many of the questions as I can and will defer to my colleagues if they wish to comment on certain areas. Deputy Enright made the point that given the size and complexity of the task force report, we should devote time to address and discuss it. That would be highly desirable if it can be accommodated. I do not have any difficulty with this. It would be worthwhile because it is a tome and covers a span of issues. That would be a positive development.

The Deputy also raised the issue of difficulties for persons over 18 years. My colleagues, particularly Gabriel Harrison, and I have daily experience of dealing with the issues both Deputies have raised. I appreciate the difficulties parents have faced and continue to face and the serious neglect over many years. I recall up to the mid-1990s that our capacity to provide resource teacher support for a special needs child in an integrated setting, which we all want to encourage and foster, was limited to the number of posts we were given in that year, arising from what was referred to as the demographic dividend. The issues were not given the priority they required and the need was not recognised. Hence the huge development in provision which has taken place in recent years. Little or no attention was paid to the spectrum of special needs for many years until people began to make noises and raise the consciousness of the community about these issues. That was no harm and it was about time something was done.

From my perspective, having some experience of the difficulties individual parents and their children go through, my colleagues and I are quite enthusiastic about developing, improving and increasing the level of services available for children with special needs, wherever possible. That is our task, why we are there, and why we intend to continue to do it. Deputy Enright put her finger on some of the difficulties one can encounter. One of the key problems is the major interdisciplinary, interdepartmental buck-passing that can arise.

As regards children over 18 years who leave the special school system, the arrangement in place is that they become the responsibility of the health service. That is fine if the services they then require are available to them. They should certainly include educational inputs, be appropriate to the particular disability category involved and recognise educational needs as well therapeutic, health care and other needs that may arise.

Similar comments about inputs could be made about children of pre-school age. The Department of Education and Science should be willing to make supports available to such children as and when required. In other words, the individual needs of the child should dictate what happens. The response should be made on the basis of the assessed needs of the individual child and provision should be made accordingly. We should not be in a situation where the child's needs are pushed into a box, which happens currently within the structure, in order that he or she will fit into our requirements instead of our requirements fitting his or her needs. The Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill will provide an important mechanism for addressing this area. Among other matters, it will make specific provision for the development of individual education and care plans for children. It will put an onus on the State that a child should be assessed and its needs identified and met. We will, therefore, have a statement specifying what the child requires and there will be an onus on the State to put in place the models of response which address the variety of needs that can arise.

We have already had some initial discussions with the Department of Health and Children and will shortly have further discussions with it on a range of issues. However, the core issue is clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the health and education sectors in dealing with the children concerned, in addition to pre-school children and adults. We need to ensure that once their needs have been identified, both systems work to the benefit of a child in terms of a service. We should accept the idea that the child is at the centre and his or her needs must be addressed. It is a question of devising appropriate models to ensure whatever component elements in the programme are required by a particular child, they are delivered. Individual education plans will play a key role in this.

At the beginning I mentioned that the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill was published prior to the dissolution of the Dáil. Since then the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, has announced a consultation process. There were advertisements in the newspapers in the autumn, in response to which a significant number of submissions have been received. Some are still being received. While the view of the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill, as opposed to the other disability legislation, emerging from the consultation process is quite positive, there are concerns. For instance, various groups have expressed concern about the definitions used in the Bill. They are of the view that they are too medical and should focus more on the educational aspects of a child's needs. Some even suggest that we should list every disability category in the Bill. There are concerns around a range of issues in terms of the models of response that will be made available. Fundamentally, however, interest groups are supportive of what the Bill is setting out to do. Some of my colleagues are examining the various submissions received and will be discussing them with the Minister with a view to taking them on board and bringing forward amended legislation. If he can achieve this, it is the Minister's intention to have the legislation passed by the summer recess.

Specialist training for teachers and assistants dealing with children with special needs is a major challenge for the Department. It has become a major issue because of the sheer numbers involved in the system. I have received a document from the in-career development unit on current activity in this area which I would like to circulate to members, if I may. There are a range of in-service training courses for teachers of children with autism and other special needs, in addition to resource teachers in integrated settings, which are provided through third level training colleges and a number of education centres at local level, including County Laois. St. Patrick's is also involved in a link-up with Birmingham University about which my colleague may wish to say a few more words.

I have been directly involved with the Middletown proposal since its initiation. I brought a briefing note which I will make available to members of the joint committee. It will not replace anything currently available, or in any way be a substitute for other activities, either here or in the North. However, I see its importance in adding value to the system as a centre of excellence to which some children will be referred for limited periods, but particularly as a resource centre for guidance, information and support for those involved in providing services for children with autism, North and South. I have circulated information on it. It is a resource which will be available to service providers and capable of providing specialist training and drawing up guidelines on best practice for those involved in the area, North and South. It will be a resource to which those involved in providing services for children with autism in the health or education sectors can have recourse.

I will deal with the questions Deputy O'Sullivan raised. If I neglect to answer any issue, I am sure she will come back to me about it. I will ask my colleague to comment on diagnosis and assessment. Pre-school provision is extremely important. In recent years we had experience of a number of children whose needs were not addressed sufficiently early. If one looked at the matter purely in economic terms - that should not be the yardstick - one would be storing up serious difficulties and exacerbating them. Thus, when one finally set out to address them the situation would be much more serious. There is no doubt that the Department has to become increasingly involved in the provision of services for pre-school children with special needs. The issue for discussion with the Department of Health and Children is to nail down the precise models of provision necessary to make it work and to ensure the respective inputs of both Departments and the health boards will be delivered properly.

We have much experience of the difficulties being encountered in the provision of speech therapy. When we wished to establish special speech and language classes, a prerequisite was that speech therapy support would be available. If it was not, the Department was failing to make the education service available because of the lack of speech therapy. The Bacon report addressed this issue and identified a serious need. I understand those on the health side who employ speech therapists have had practical difficulties locating people in a position to and willing to become involved in this area. A number of those identified subsequently left. That is the supply issue which was addressed in the Bacon report. I have been given some figures, which I confess I only got late yesterday evening and have not had the chance to examine, on developments to date in regard to the 175 posts to which a certain Deputy referred. I will make them available to members of the joint committee.

There is no doubt that this is an important area. In a way, it demonstrates the difficulties which can arise when one is talking about children with serious special needs and where a multidisciplinary or range of responses is required. One Department, or its agents, puts in place elements of the response, but that is not sufficient in that others also need to be put in place. There is no doubt that there have been major difficulties bringing all the elements together and delivering services to work to the benefit of a child. It is no secret there have been major difficulties in this area, one of the key issues about which we will speak to the Department of Health and Children. We have made some suggestions as to how they can be addressed and will speak to the Department this month about how we can get our act together in terms of meeting the needs of the children concerned and making services available to them.

As regards the applied behaviour analysis issue, I mentioned that we had a number of pilot projects in operation and that the provision of such facilities as well as the various autism units in operation were being reviewed by the inspectorate. In terms of how this will proceed and what we will end up with, I would like to see a situation where our school system will be equipped to provide a response for children with autism or any other special need and deliver the model of response a particular child needs when, where and for as long as he or she needs it. The level and nature of the need can change, as can the nature of the response.

We have school-based units and ABA stand-alone facilities. In a small number of cases we have arranged for the ABA component to be delivered in the school-based unit. I like to think we will be able to develop this model further in order that the children in question will be part of a school in which they will participate to the maximum extent possible in the general activities of the school rather than being in a stand-alone and separate unit catering solely for children with autism using a particular model of response. Ultimately, they might look towards integration into ordinary classes in order that they will be part of the school like any other pupil.

Chairman

Ms MacCurtain might wish to address the issue of assessment.

Ms Lee MacCurtain

I would like to address the questions and comments of the two Deputies concerned on the work of the NEPS. I would like to put the matter in context. The NEPS is still in the middle of its roll-out period and does not yet provide a service for all schools. We are trying to deliver a service to schools, improve and expand it as well as improve our underlying capability of responding well to children with autism spectrum disorders. Under the Government decision, we only have a mandate to deal with children and young people in schools. Therefore, the issues raised about liaison are crucial to us. I will return to them. A member of senior management was a member of the task force on autism and as soon as the report was placed in the public domain, the NEPS set up an internal working group to produce a response to the report in so far as it related to our role. That is practically ready and we hope to implement it soon.

The central issues in the remarks of both Deputies related to assessment and liaison with the health sector. Assessment of children with ASD can be made for a number of purposes, the first of which is to diagnose the condition. This can be done by a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist or an educational psychologist using certain internationally accepted criteria. In our case, if we make a preliminary diagnosis, we always refer onwards to a psychiatrist for further investigation in case there is an underlying health problem, of which we are not aware. Whether one goes to the clinical or educational services for this first diagnosis depends on the age of the child. If the child already attends a NEPS school, the preliminary diagnosis will be made by the NEPS psychologist.

Another purpose of assessment is to develop an IEP - individual educational programme - for the child. It is absolutely essential that the assessment is multidisciplinary, involving speech therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, perhaps psychiatrists and psychotherapists and, centrally, the teacher of the child. The NEPS sees itself as having a crucial role to play in supporting teachers in co-ordinating the assessment findings and developing the individual educational programme.

A third important purpose of assessment is to review progress. It is essential that children in the category of ASD undergo frequent review assessments, although perhaps not full assessments. For instance, a programme of behaviour modification might have been recommended to allow the child to be toilet trained and it is obviously essential that this be reviewed frequently. As soon as the objective is achieved, a new programme will be drawn up.

Liaison with health boards and voluntary bodies is crucial. We were established in ten regions - equivalent to the health board regions - to allow for good liaison, but we have found that effective liaison does not happen by accident or goodwill. A working group was established with our partners in the health boards as a result of which we have produced a report which outlines an action plan at national, regional, local and even school level to ensure effective liaison. It has not yet been placed in the public domain because I am waiting for the chief executive officers of the health boards to sign off on it which, I think, will happen soon. We will then implement it.

On the development of our capabilities, the question was asked if psychologists were aware of the needs of children with autism spectrum disorders. The internal working group I mentioned comprises one person from each region. They act as a resource for the region to advise colleagues, organise training sessions, if necessary, and do difficult and complex assessments, as necessary. We are in the middle of a major programme of continuing professional development in the area of autism spectrum disorders. Every psychologist participated in a three day course given by an international expert. Psychologists are also facilitated to attend conferences, seminars and training courses. In the current school year five psychologists are participating in a postgraduate course in autism spectrum disorders organised by the University of Birmingham. As each of them serves two regions, they act as a resource for the service as a whole.

We collaborate very closely with our colleagues in the North, the principal psychologists in Northern Ireland, and are hoping to organise with them ongoing professional development in the area of assessment and programme development for children with ASD.

That is as much as I want to say for the moment.

Chairman

Those questions and responses took 44 minutes and I am conscious a number of members have sat through proceedings and may wish to speak. I already have some names. Members should try to complete their contributions in about four minutes and, in so far as possible, raise new issues. They will be aware that we will have a working lunch and that they will be in a position to pursue some of the issues informally. I want to conduct as much business as possible in the formal committee setting. We will take all the contributions of members before the next round of responses.

Deputy Gogarty

There is no point in going over what the first two speakers said given that it will be on record and we are trying to achieve progress. I thank the witnesses for attending and acknowledge the presence of Kathy Sinnott who I am sure, had she been elected, would have been an active and vociferous member of this committee. She has done great work in highlighting the issue under discussion, especially where ASD is concerned.

Regarding the forthcoming Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill and the submissions on it to date, is there any way members of the joint committee could obtain copies of submissions in order that, when the Minister finally publishes the Bill - I am critical of the delay - members could decide what contributions they would like to support or perhaps what amendments they would like to table? That would be interesting. I know some groups send their submissions to Deputies and Senators, but it might be an idea for us to have all submissions, in electronic format, if possible, which would be even better because it would save paper.

In terms of the 180-plus recommendations of the report of the task force on autism, are there any plans to produce a scheme in the form of recommendations, objectives and actions from which we can see what will be taken on board and the reasons for this? I note from the contributions today that advancing structures and legislative measures is supposed to be the current priority, but some background work could also take place depending on what is sanctioned. It would be educational for both the joint committee and the groups involved in making progress on ASD and providing assistance for those suffering from it to have an idea of departmental and ministerial thinking. That might take time but it would be useful. I received a copy of the report last Monday and have skimmed through it, although I went into some detail on the recommendations. However, I am one of a number of new Deputies and do not know which of them will be implemented.

On costs and scale, I note from the report that 6,700-plus people from birth to age 19 years are expected to need some service. What will be the overall cost? It is projected that a person with autism and learning difficulties could cost €3.5 million in their lifetime whereas someone with a higher level of autism could cost approximately €1 million. Is there a projected cost for the provision of a proper service under the Constitution for those with ASD and their families and an idea of the impact that would have on next year's Estimates? We are seeing cutbacks in certain aspects of education. I note the increases mentioned in the witnesses' contribution, but I am concerned the issue of cost will become too much of a factor and that a decreased level of service in real terms will be offered.

I note from the report that the judge in the Sinnott case said the needs should be met as a matter of constitutional priority and that costs were to be secondary. He also said there was insufficient liaison between two or more Departments, mainly the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children. I am especially interested to know the reason education for those over 18 years is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children. Those in third level education are over 18 years and adult education involves people of any age. Why, given that the needs are non-medical, does the Department of Education and Science wash its hands? Could a recommendation be made to the Minister that this Department should take direct control? I know there is talk about increasing liaison and integration, but this concerns educational issues which will continue throughout life.

I want further updates on the ABAs, their location and the criteria being used in the inspector's review. Will cost be a factor?

Deputy Crowe

I was struck by the statement in the report that the expenditure on special needs had increased tenfold in the past three years and that talks were taking place about extra teachers and so on. It highlights how bad the system was until 1998.

Three pilot ABA areas - Kill, Kilbarrack and Cork - were mentioned in the report the witnesses gave. How were these areas selected? What role does the Department of Finance play in this, a matter about which people are concerned? Does it have the final say? How often does frequent assessment take place? How often should it take place?

The task force report referred to the need for enhanced co-ordination between various bodies, especially the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science. It is stated repeatedly that this is an issue that crosses lines of responsibility. What mechanism is in place following this report to improve co-ordination between the two Departments? Has the recommendation to establish an interdepartmental ASD working group with parental representation been implemented? The working group would include in its general remit the production of a service level agreement to indicate clearly the responsibility, including resources, of each Department, and secure and implement education provision and support services for persons with ASDs. Can we have a progress report on the work to date of this group, if it has been established? If it has not, why not?

Do we have information on the reaction to this report by the Department of Health and Children? It is strange that its representatives are not present given that it is one of the service providers.

The task force report on dyslexia also highlighted problems of poor detection rates and training. I was contacted by a constituent who was informed by a local Deputy that the reason for the lack of progress in training teachers to identify dyslexia was resistance from teachers' unions. I wrote to the unions and they denied this. What plans are in place for programmes to train teachers to identify and deal with dyslexia and autism? Have meetings with the teachers' unions taken place regarding training in this regard? What is the status of these talks? How do plans for extra training, assuming there are any, square with cutbacks of €6 million in in-service and teacher training announced on 13 December last year? Will these cuts restrict the development of teacher training programmes in the area of autism?

The task force recommended that urgent attention be paid by the Government to providing urgent and appropriate constitutional reforms to make provision for the educational needs and so on of people with disabilities. What has the Government done in this regard? The Supreme Court ruled in the Sinnott case that the State had a constitutional obligation to provide free primary education for citizens over the age of 18 years. The report advocated constitutional reforms to clear up outstanding issues, including a constitutional amendment to consider the right to free primary education regardless of age.

This is a lengthy report which refers to the fact that people must go to court to obtain rights for their children. This is frustrating, not just for parents but also for children. While the report makes many worthwhile recommendations, they must be implemented sooner rather than later. I am concerned that if the Department of Finance continues to have a major say in these issues, many of the recommendations will not be implemented.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the representatives to the joint committee. To avoid repetition, I will refer briefly to some of the points I wanted to make. My initial point relates to early assessment. It jumps out of the report that pre-school assessment does not seem to be adequate. However, that issue has already been dealt with. I also wanted to refer to liaison with the Department of Health and Children, but, again, that issue has been raised. Raising it again might indicate the level of cross-party support for these issues. There have been fundamental points made about the common sense analysis made in the report.

Another issue I want to raise is the difference between pure autism, a mixture of autism and difficulties in regard to intellectual disability. Mr. Kilroy has said that we cannot expect people to fit into the services we provide, that we must gear the services to meet people's needs. I would like some details on the degree of pure autism and whether the services available are able to deal with those who have a mixture of autism and intellectual disability. Is the service sufficiently flexible to deal with this issue because we cannot expect people to fit into the services we provide?

My next point relates to training psychologists. I understand there was a difficulty last year when the Department of Health and Children refused to fund courses for training psychologists in Trinity College and other institutions. I do not know the details, but it would be a great problem if we were not funding the training of psychologists while saying we planned to deliver on the recommendations in the report. Clearly, psychologists are at the forefront of the assessment process.

I would like to raise the issue of the special needs organisers who will operate under the council and the qualifications required of them. Will they need to have a background in health provision or administration, or what is their background expected to be because they will also be at the forefront in this regard?

My final question relates to respite support for parents. Does the Department envisage a role for itself in the provision of respite support for parents in the context of local health centres and so on? Are there future plans in that regard?

Chairman

I should have pointed out in response to Deputy Crowe that this committee can only deal with matters which come under the ambit of the Department of Education and Science. That is the reason the health element cannot be dealt with by the committee. However, I will write to the Chairman of the appropriate committee and ask him to follow up on what was done during the previous Dáil in regard to this issue.

Prior to the meeting, Deputy Stanton asked me to pursue the point subsequently raised by Deputy Enright in regard to further meetings on this issue. It is clear the joint committee has many concerns. While much good work is being done, the committee would like to be involved in developing matters further.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the representatives from the Department. I would need four days instead of four minutes to debate this issue because our first real working meeting comes eight months after the general election.

Chairman

No one is getting more than four minutes.

Deputy Stanton

I could do with four days because I am extremely angry. May I ask Mr. Kilroy from where the Middletown centre proposal came and the reason members of the joint committee were not circulated with information prior to this? It appears that this is a major change in policy. Will he point out where this has been recommended in the task force report because I cannot find it anywhere? Does this mean the recommendations of the task force are binned? How much will it cost and from where will the money come? I have no recollection of this matter being mentioned in any of the Estimates, unless it happened last year. Was it proposed at any stage in the task force report and, if so, what was the reaction? I will stop here because many of my other questions will be predicated on the response to this question. Perhaps I can save valuable time by getting a brief response, if possible, from Mr. Kilroy on this issue.

Chairman

We have agreed to continue.

Deputy Stanton

I understand from the documents I have seen that children can be placed in the institution in question for up to six weeks. Given that it is located in Armagh, how can children from counties Kerry and Cork be sent there for six weeks? Will their parents be accommodated? Have they been consulted on the matter? Was the parent representative on the task force consulted and, if so, what was his response? The task force speaks about parents being considered full and equal partners and having primacy in the decision-making process. How can this happen if a child is away for six weeks? How can parents be advocates if they are physically removed from the process for that length of time?

Will the Middletown model fund the seeking of independent second opinions where there is a dispute and give parents a choice of these opinions? How will it make a comprehensive paediatric assessment? I understand that in order to deal properly with autism the earlier one intervenes the better. How can the assessment and diagnosis functions be independent of each other in the one institution run by the Department, which is also a player in this regard? How can the Middletown model task one model of best practice when recommendation 12 of chapter 4 of the task force report speaks about a variety of different models? The information I have seen refers to one model. Will a parent be allowed to pursue a different model? Will it be linked to a university and, if so, which one? How can a range of suitable options be developed in order that students presenting with behavioural challenges remain in suitable educational programmes if the Middletown model of assessment includes residential placement to undertake such a complex assessment? How can a range of approaches be used in a national model? What does this mean?

This is a major change of policy which has not been discussed anywhere, to my knowledge. This meeting was called to talk about the task force. I suspect this matter would not even have been mentioned if Deputy Enright had not done so. I am amazed that we did not receive this information prior to the meeting.

How can the evaluation research on pre-school programmes be independently carried out at the Middletown centre which is controlled by the Departments of Education, North and South? We are talking about two different legal areas. If a dispute arises, how will it be resolved? We have already seen the problems we have had in this area when parents have been forced to go to the courts time and again to get their children's rights. We do not want to see that happen again.

How are adolescents to be dealt with? Recommendation No. 11 in chapter 17 states that adolescents and adults should be supported at local level. How can empirically validated methods be available to schools in each of the geographical regions if there is only one centre in the whole of Ireland? Will funding impact on the funding available at present? What is the current level of funding for the special needs sector, especially for autism?

Chairman

The Deputy is exceeding his time.

Deputy Stanton

We have waited eight months and get four minutes. May I ask Ms MacCurtain what methodology is followed on the course in Birmingham? Are psychologists being trained in other methodologies also?

The inspectorate is assessing the pilot projects. Who are the inspectors and what are their qualifications to assess ABA? Are they themselves expert in ABA? Mr. Kilroy also spoke about the model of response. The nature of the model can change. He spoke about integrating autistic children into mainstream schools. Is it not important, particularly where ABA is concerned, that children learn through ABA for a considerable period initially and only when they are judged to be ready do they move into the mainstream, with major support?

I have asked the Minister the following question on numerous occasions and have not got a response. I now ask it of Ms MacCurtain. How many psychologists are working on the ground, what is their workload and how long is the waiting list? While I have been told parents and children are lined up waiting for assistance, I cannot find out the nature or extent of the problem. Surely the psychologists working under the NEPS can let Ms MacCurtain know what their workload is and how many students are waiting. I cannot understand the reason this information is not forthcoming. It should be easy to gather. I know the number changes, but surely we can be told how many children have requested assessment by a psychologist.

Chairman

Deputy Stanton has spoken for twice his allocated time. He raised the question of the allocation of time. It is not within my control to make more time available. His party members have spoken for 19 minutes, the largest party in the House has had less than four minutes and other members are also present. The point he raised is unreasonable.

Deputy Stanton

Eight months.

Chairman

That is also an unreasonable point. This is the first occasion on which we have had an opportunity to deal with this matter.

Senator U. Burke

I will be very brief. We must realise that during the years the response of the Department of Education and Science to parents who have identified needs and requested a response from it has not been coherent. One could not identify a person or group within the Department which could respond positivily to a request without passing the buck along the line. I am delighted to hear Mr. Kilroy say we have at last put a structure in place to supply this response and that the Department can now be proactive rather than reactive, as has been the case in the past. I would welcome this if it were the case, but I find it difficult to believe so much has changed since the mid-1990s.

Many parents who have a child with special needs, regardless of the degree or type of need, could not get basic necessities from the Department which passed them on to the Department of Health and Children and the health boards. Many general practitioners failed to recognise autism until parents identified their children's special needs. I do not believe anything has changed.

We talk about liaison between the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children. As a member of a health board, I have tried time and again to highlight the need for speech therapists. I have been told the board is at its limit and that the Department of Education and Science is providing special schools or running various pilot projects. The problem is always passed on.

I hope what Ms MacCurtain has said is the first step towards reality rather than the notional idea that structures are in place. It is a sad reality that until heads in the two Departments are knocked together, many children will continue to go without. That is my terrible fear. Councils and work schemes can be put in place but basic services still cannot be got.

In the west it is practically impossible to get a basic requirement such as a computer for home tuition. Parents of children with special needs do not want this additional hassle. The inspectorate in the Department of Education and Science is at sixes and sevens regarding a positive and meaningful response to a special demand such as this. It is no wonder parents have opted for home tuition of children with special needs. This is an indictment of both Departments. Parents prefer to take on the task themselves and ask only for basic facilities in the home.

Expenditure on additional equipment has increased tenfold. However, small rural national schools still have boxes of computers and other equipment stacked up in toilets and cloakrooms. There will not be a sea change in the response of the Department of Education and Science. However, we must have realism about what can be done.

I know parents who will not send their children to school for speech therapy because they know they will only get access to the therapist for ten or 15 minutes in a fortnight or even a month. That is not a service. Reality must hit home some place. The reality can be seen on the ground where parents and teachers are working. They must be consulted. We talked about consultative processes but the end product was a council. If that council does not react to the situation on the ground, we are wasting our time. Four days or 40 days talking about reports is useless until there is a sea change and a realisation that heads must be knocked together between the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children. I do not blame the Department of Education and Science because I recall from working in the health area that it is worse there.

Deputy Hoctor

Many of my queries have already been addressed by my colleagues. I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Science and look forward to having more time to discuss the areas of autism and special needs in education. Today we are dealing with only the tip of the iceberg.

I acknowledge the significant and substantial investment that has been made by the Department in recent years in increased staffing. However, while staffing has been provided we have not been as forthcoming with building provisions to provide accommodation for resource and special needs teachers, etc. Does the special needs department liaise with the building unit of the Department in decision making in regard to the allocation of teachers? This is a practical question in regard to the physical accommodation of people. As Senator Ulick Burke said there are many schools in which computers are much needed but they cannot be accommodated adequately.

There is a vacuum in regard to the diagnosis and acknowledgement of autism and of children with autism. By the time these children reach school at five years of age valuable time has been lost in diagnosis. The Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science will have to address this urgently.

I acknowledge the presence of Mrs. Kathy Sinnott. In the area of young adult education people have benefited from special needs education as it exists at the moment in our schools but what happens when they leave school? In conjunction with health board provisions, what provisions are put in place for them so that education is life long? We hear much about life-long learning but there seems to be slow progress on that issue.

None of these changes can be implemented without the co-operation of teachers but they too have been forgotten. Teachers volunteer to undertake training as resource teachers and for the various specialist areas. They do so largely at their own expense and overnight or travel expenses are not covered adequately. Many of them leave their families to attend courses in Dublin once or twice a year. Teachers should be encouraged to become involved in this area because we want a standard of excellence and professionalism in the special needs area. The Department must address this.

I prefer to leave further questions for another day. I look forward to extended time in the near future for discussion where we will have the opportunity to meet with the officials again and to extend and broaden the brief we have before us today. This should be prior to the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill.

Senator Fitzgerald

I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Science. Their presentation was informative and I welcome much of what they said. I also welcome this committee's decision to have a number of follow up discussions on this issue with the officials. That will be helpful.

People mentioned difficulties we had with diagnosis and assessment in regard to the period from 1969 to 1974. In that period two of the pupils I took forward from second to sixth class were dyslexic. I did not know what was wrong with them nor did the Department of Education. I got full co-operation from an understanding and enlightened school principal but he did not know what was wrong with them either. I do not say we have come a phenomenal way since but this example offers a background to where we are now. Those people looking for instant solutions should bear in mind that it has been a slow and painful struggle over the years as experts both in Ireland and abroad have tried to understand what exactly it is and what to do about it. This does not mean that licence should be given to anybody in the education or health Departments with regard to tardiness.

I was in that school until I came to the House in 1981. In regard to diagnosis, we had two special classes in the school at the time. While that was commendable and considered progressive at the time for an inner city school in Dublin, the kind of record that was there in terms of response to requests for diagnosis was appalling. All the diagnosis at the time was done by the teachers on site in the school. Assessment, which was a prerequisite to placement, usually involved a period of number of years. I am not reassured today that the time lag has shortened spectacularly but I know that a lot of progress has been made. I would like to look at that at a further date.

In the 1970s and more particularly in the 1980s the urgent need for liaison and a close, integrated and focused approach between education and health was articulated many times by many Members of both Houses, including me, as I was involved in the education debate at that time. It is sad to find that we are still talking about joint reports or reports being drawn up for the implementation of that kind of approach. However, we should not overlook the fact that decisions have been made at Government level in recent times to appoint Ministers of State to be responsible in both Departments. That is an important initiative. It does not satisfactorily accelerate the process towards a proper integrated focused approach but it is commendable.

I have further points I wish to raise but as we are running late I will leave them to further meetings. I will just comment on progress that has been made. In the last few years, since the late 1990s, spectacular progress has been made. In regard to the question of schools of excellence, any country that does not aspire to a school of excellence, whether national or locally based, should ask itself serious questions. I am not saying that all is well in regard to the school of excellence in Middletown. If one looks at the progress that has been made on the ground throughout the communities of Ireland it is short sighted to say that we will leave a school of excellence aside, irrespective of the cost implications. A school of excellence is an invaluable resource to be tapped into just as resource teachers at a local level are an invaluable resource.

In regard to specialties and multidisciplinary teams, over a period of successive Governments the yardstick by which success was measured was the number of remedial teachers that successive budgets appointed to the system. That was an extraordinarily negative way to look at the matter and was a form of competition without getting at the real issues in education. I am heartened by the progress made over the last few years. It is positive and takes account of the integrated approach needed. There is a long way to go but a good beginning has been made.

Chairman

I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I may have missed this point but I am not sure how the Department ensures it stays close to, and follows up on, international best practice and developments elsewhere. In the past week I read of an initiative in the US which shows progress with a particular group within the spectrum of autism disorders. There are also a number of initiatives internationally which show some progress. How does the Department follow up on such international developments?

I am interested in the point raised by Deputy O'Sullivan in regard to monitoring progress. I appreciate the answer given by Ms MacCurtain. It seems the personnel are simply not available to deal with this issue in the most profitable manner. I am sure people will have the opportunity to hear a radio documentary called "Living with Dara" which relates to a family in my constituency. It is an extraordinary programme which deals with the impact on the extended family of living with a six year old with autism. I know Mr. Kilroy is familiar with the specific case. I urge members to listen to the programme.

We are running a little over time. I will try to ensure we finish by 1.20 p.m.

Mr. Kilroy

I will go through the questions and my colleagues might like to make a few comments.

With regard to submissions made in respect of the Bill, subject to a request that any such submissions be retained as confidential, I have no difficulty with that information being made available. Suggestions were made in relation to funding for special education services and it was suggested that there may have been cutbacks. None of the subheads I handle in relation to special education services has been subject to cutback. I think they have all been increased, in some cases quite substantially.

I will give an example of one figure. The payroll cost of the special needs assistant service in the current year will approach €100 million. Funding for special equipment and for part-time tuition has increased, as has funding right across the spectrum. On foot of the Government's commitment to an automatic response to special needs, there is no suggestion that the Department of Finance or the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, is intervening and limiting the number of these measures we have put in place.

The number of special schools, special classes and resource teachers is determined by the number of children who require such services. In relation to the over-18s, I have made some comments already and there is no suggestion that the Department washes its hands of children once they leave the special schools system. There certainly have been specific instances where what ought to have been made available to people over 18 leaving the special system has not been forthcoming, has broken down or has been unsatisfactory. That is why it is important that our Department, the Department of Health and Children and the health boards get together to address this matter. It is not a question of resources, it is a question of putting in place the appropriate model, having regard to the fact that one is dealing with people of a certain age group with a range of disabilities. Discussions in this regard to which I referred earlier will take place shortly. There have been no cutbacks in provision for children with special needs.

With regard to the council for special education and SNOs - special needs organisers - we will be seeking people with expertise and experience in the field of special needs, in the area of teaching and probably in the area of psychology. The intention is that an order creating the council will be brought forward probably in February. I am hopeful it will be in February. We will then proceed to appoint these special needs organisers to the council.

I do not see the Department of Education and Science having a role in providing respite care. That is an educational matter and is dealt with by the Department of Health and Children. I have a case in my mind where there is no doubt the parent of the child in question could benefit greatly from respite care. We at the Department encourage the health side to make this available in cases that come to our attention.

We liaise closely with the building unit in relation to special needs and that unit gives priority to special needs issues in terms of provision.

I am disappointed with Deputy Stanton's comments about the Middletown Centre which he portrayed in a negative light. From my dealings with the issue, I believe it is a badly needed resource in which parents will have an involvement. I envisage that parents of children with autism will be on the board of the Middletown project and will have a central role to play in the issue of service provision. This initiative arose from discussions in which my colleagues and I have been involved for some time through our contacts in the North-South Ministerial Council and other bodies on provision for children with special needs. They have encountered similar difficulties regarding children with various types of special needs and are examining the models of approach that ought to be adopted. A facility that would bring together the best of both jurisdictions to focus on this issue would be highly desirable. I accept issues will arise in relation to the location of the centre but such issues arise no matter where a special facility is located because it will always be located closer to some than others. I see it as an extra resource providing support to people. I do not see it as a centre that replaces all that exists or ought to exist already.

A plenary North-South group is engaged in planning the role and focus of this facility and we will shortly invite comments from interested parties on the proposed structure and roles for the facility in Middletown. From my experience we continually encounter difficulties in the area of special needs where specialist support and inputs are required. I see the Middletown facility as offering an opportunity to put in place that service. Some of my colleagues may wish to add further comments.

Mr. Gabriel Harrison

Deputy Crowe made a comment about resistance to training from teacher unions. This is something we have not encountered. In all cases, teachers are only too willing to engage in training whether it is for autism, dyslexia or some other disability. The demand is greater than the supply for courses throughout the year. I do not know from where that notion came.

Deputy Crowe

The comment that there was resistance was made by another TD.

Chairman

The last time the Minister was before the committee he promised to send us a report on the issue of numbers; we will have a further discussion in that context. We will have special meetings on the Bill when it comes before us. Arising from the proposal made by Deputy Enright, we have agreed to revisit this issue in a special meeting.

Deputy Stanton

On a point of clarification, I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues in public. The task force sat for a full year and produced a fantastic report. Why was the centre of excellence not presented to or put before the task force? It does not appear anywhere in the report. This proposal seems to have been mooted some time ago. Why is it not mentioned in the report as the number one recommendation if it is so great?

Mr. Kilroy

I am sorry, I was meant to address that point.

Chairman

While I disagree with Deputy Stanton, I am glad he raised that issue.

Mr. Kilroy

It is important to have an exchange of views and to put in place the right model. It is important that we spend resources effectively in this area. I feel as strongly as anyone else about that.

There were representatives of the Middletown group, which included representatives from Northern Ireland, on the task force. Regardless of whether the centre is mentioned in the task force report the task force would be aware of it. What is mentioned in the report, and runs right through it, is the need for expertise, co-ordination, clarity in approach and consistency in diagnosis. Middletown can be effective in supporting that North and South as well as dealing with what I would call the particularly difficult, perhaps rather exceptional, cases. I would see Middletown as having a very important role in supporting schools in Cork or elsewhere. Middletown will not necessarily deal only with those who come to Middletown.

Deputy Stanton

That still does not answer the question. If it is so great, why was it not a recommendation of the task force? It was not even discussed by the task force.

Mr. Kilroy

The task force has recommended the sort of activities the Middletown facility provides.

Deputy Stanton

That is not the question. It was very specific in what it recommended and Middletown is not included. In fact, the opposite is included.

Mr. Kilroy

That is a question for the task force. The Deputy needs to remember it was an independent body. We did not write its agenda or report. It was up to the people on the task force.

Deputy Stanton

They did not recommend this.

Mr. Kilroy

Among its number were people who were involved in the Middletown development. I feel it will make an important contribution.

Deputy Stanton

I would be concerned the task force did not feel that.

Mr. Kilroy

I do not think its members said they did not feel it. The Deputy says they made no reference to it. They certainly have not criticised or condemned the Middletown development. I hold the view that what Middletown is about, the members of the task force are also about.

Deputy Enright

From where will the resources for Middletown come? We have already discussed the resources needed at local level. Mr. Kilroy has said in his letter to the health boards that it will complement rather than replace or take from the existing service. However, if we are to provide all these extra facilities at local level based on the 178 recommendations of the task force, from where will the money for that and Middletown come? For the past nine months we have heard about cutbacks in every sector, although Mr. Kilroy has denied they have hit his own sector. The money has to come from somewhere to finance all this. There clearly does not appear to be that kind of money either in the Department of Education and Science or the Department of Finance at the moment.

Mr. Kilroy

I have made the point already that there have been no cutbacks. The provision for Middletown is made available and as an example in relation to the special education subheads that fund special education activity, the amount for equipment is up from €1.6 million to €2.5 million approximately.

Deputy Stanton

What is the cost of Middletown?

Mr. Kilroy

Some £2 million sterling.

Deputy Stanton

Is that the contribution from this side?

Mr. Kilroy

No, that is the total cost.

Deputy Stanton

Does that include running costs?

Mr. Kilroy

No.

Deputy Stanton

What would the running costs be?

Mr. Kilroy

Much of the work on recruitment and the salary levels of staff to be involved is still to be worked out. I would think it would probably be something between €500,000 to €750,000 from each side towards the operating cost of the facility when it becomes operational.

Chairman

There will be two further meetings in January. One will be with the Institute of Engineers in Ireland, regarding the science, technology and engineering programme for schools. That arises from work done by the previous committee. On 30 January there will be a meeting, at which we will have a bad attendance, with the Department of Education and Science to discuss investment in educational infrastructure through the school modernisation fund.

I thank Mr. Kilroy, Mr. Harrison and Ms MacCurtain for their attendance and for their answers to the questions. I also thank members for their contributions to a very lively and timely debate. From the interest shown, it is clear members are encountering difficulties in their constituencies and welcome the opportunity to discuss these with the delegation here today. I have constituents interested in this area, who are very impressed with the commitment of Mr. Kilroy and his colleagues. This commitment was reflected in Mr. Kilroy's contribution today. I look forward to revisiting this issue on a number of occasions during the year.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.25 p.m.