Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Oct 2001

Vol. 168 No. 6

Special Education: Motion.

Mr. O'Toole

I move:

That Seanad Éireann

welcomes:

– the substantial increases in resources being made available to special education;

– the Minister's announcement of his intention to establish a National Council for Special Education;

– the work of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in the area of curriculum for special needs;

denounces:

– the system which compels parents to resort to the courts and other legal means to get an appropriate education for those of their children with special needs;

proposes:

– that the Minister for Education recognise the right of all citizens, young and old, with special needs to an appropriate education and that the type of education provision provided by the State is in all cases determined by the needs of the person;

– that legislation be drafted immediately to protect the rights of all those with disabilities;

– that the Minister continue to improve the resources available to meet the needs of all those with special needs;

– that the Minister recognise the rights of parents of those with special needs to be consulted in the determination of the appropriate placement for their children;

– that the Minister establish a comprehensive programme of training for all teachers and other personnel working in special needs education;

– that the Minister re-establish the Special Education Review Committee comprising all the education partners to review special education provision at pre-school, primary, post-primary and third levels;

– that each child's psychological report list the resources required for every child with special needs and that schools be given those resources to meet the child's needs and

– that schools be given an appropriate additional level of staffing to meet the needs of the pupils in those schools where year round programmes are in place.

As will be seen, I have made an attempt to cover all the needs. I am not being mealy mouthed in saying that I hope the Government side of the House will recognise the inclusive way in which we deal with the Minister for Education and Science, as we normally do in welcoming the progress that he has made.

I regret that the drafters of the appalling amendment did not formulate it differently. I tabled the motion is such a way that they did not have to propose deleting all words after "Seanad Éireann". They could have proposed to delete all words after "denounces" or something to that effect. It would make the approach a lot easier.

During the summer, I sought the recall of this House to deal with this type of matter and the issues that followed from the Sinnott case. I certainly want to make some reference to those. The simple point we are addressing is that every citizen has the entitlement, whether they are young or old, to an appropriate education and the type of education provision provided by the State in all cases should be determined by the needs of the person. That is a simple point.

The outcome of the Sinnott case was appalling. The State said that a person is not entitled to receive fundamental education simply because the court said that, from its perspective, Jamie Sinnott was not entitled to primary education. This was never the intention of the people who drafted the Constitution.

I ask the Minister of State to recognise the need for early intervention and planning. The Minister talked about having an open cheque – it is a great thing for a Minister to say he has an open cheque, but I am not simply talking about throwing money at the problem. I would like to adopt a very detailed approach to ensure we meet the needs of those requiring special education.

We need early identification of children with special needs, no matter what age. As soon as they have a problem – whether it be a learning difficulty, autism or a related condition, or a serious mental or emotional difficulty – they must be identified as early as possible. Having done that, we want every child with special needs to have an assessment to determine the precise nature of his or her needs. We want to ensure that the needs are catered for with sufficient resources. Schools must be resourced properly to ensure they can give the children the level of education they require.

My colleague, Senator Norris, who is seconding the motion, will allude to the importance of educational psychologists. I will ignore that for a moment. The Minister of State will accept that it is not just a problem for teachers. I want a broad, global approach to the problem that examines it from different points of view. We have spoken to teachers and asked them what are the main difficulties. There are certain obvious ones we should all be aware of. Another is the lack of quality medical back-up. It is not just a matter for educational psychologists – who are fundamentally important – but speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. All these forms of therapy are required to assist children with special needs. There is a strong view that psychiatric services should be provided in certain cases. It must be understood that there is no one system that is suitable for every single child, even those with the same types of difficulties.

With regard to the row that ensued from the Jamie Sinnott case, we were very worried because we met parents and friends who took the view that what their children needed was a particular regime because they had autism. Some had been taken down to Cork to witness the CABA system which they thought was brilliant. Another group witnessed a system in operation in Kildare and thought it was brilliant. The Department of Education and Science was extolling the virtues of an outreach system, which was the one to adopt.

There are no absolutes in education. Children have multiple needs. It is probably the case that every child could make progress under any one of the systems, but we want to ensure that the system that is most appropriate for a child is available. Also, any system that is used must be properly approved and professionally sound.

It is understandable that parents are at their wits end. Nobody is talking to them about their difficulties. It is no wonder that they criticise the Minister and the Government. It is a matter of communication. I have included in the motion a proposal "that the Minister recognise the rights of parents of those with special needs to be consulted in the determination of the appropriate placement for their children". I am making that proposal as the General Secretary of INTO. We have seen the problems that are created if nobody talks to the parents and explains what they are doing and why a certain system is being approved for their child. When they receive inadequate professional advice, they meet one of the groups of parents – with the best of intentions – that supports one particular kind of regime, and they are told that that regime is the answer to their problems. We need a way of ensuring that any system put in place is the correct one.

We are aware of the progress that has been made, but we do not want the Minister pandering to every group that demands money for a particular system. That is now happening. Six months ago, the Minister was saying that the only system he would sanction with regard to autism was the outreach system. Now he is offering support to almost any group that proposes a system. Every proposal should be properly vetted, examined and approved. That is what we want to do. Any criticism I have made of the Minister is for no other reason than to achieve what I propose in the motion.

The key to the effective implementation of a more inclusive policy is that there be flexibility, provision of resources and availability of appropriate materials, including availability of ICT for children with special needs. I could speak for three hours about the extraordinary added value of information and communications technology for children with special needs. It is almost impossible to imagine what it is like to see a child who has never been able to communicate suddenly being able to do so. I have seen many times where technology can convey speech and sound and interpret movements, pushes, eyelid movements or whatever to allow a child communicate. No matter what way we do it, that is what it is about.

The provision of professional development in special education to all teachers and special needs assistants is also important. Teachers must be kept up-to-date with the latest developments and given the opportunity to improve themselves while ensuring special needs assistants are available. That is another point we raise; there should be special needs assistants in classrooms and schools dealing with children with special needs. It is something of which the Minister approves and which needs to be developed as quickly as possible.

As well as open access to psychological assessment, I welcome another initiative of the Minister's which is not included in the motion. We argued with the Minister for a long time that, because there was not access to the limited educational psychological service, he should allow schools to go to a private psychologist and claim back the costs in an approved manner. I welcome that this has been put in place and that a list of qualified educational psychologists approved by the Department of Education and Science has been put on the Department's website. These can be approached directly by schools to conduct psychological assessments in the schools which can then claim back the cost from the Department. This is an important initiative and I am not in any way begrudging in recognising those issues which have been progressed, but the issue must be taken a little further.

We also need a team approach involving all the professionals – the class, resource teachers, visiting and special class teachers and the multi-disciplinary teams involving professionals from other disciplines. We have also put forward a number of issues which we believe can help the Minister in this process. The establishment of a council through which we can tune in to the expertise of people would be fantastic.

I wish to finish with a story about information and communications technology. About 12 years ago I was camping on a beach in west Kerry. Beside me were a family with a child who had multiple disabilities. He was in a wheelchair and was not able to speak or communicate. He tried to indicate what he had to say by pointing at pictures on a picture board. He was clearly very bright but could not communicate in any way. He became the centre of the caravan site where we were for that week. I always remember that a jackdaw befriended him and spent the week on his shoulder or his picture board, something which made the child hysterical with laughter. We tried to keep in contact with him for a few years after that and he visited us a few times but then we lost contact.

In the middle of the summer I read an article in The Irish Times about people with special needs and how they have evolved. There was our old friend James Brosnan now in his 20s hooked up to all types of machinery in DCU where he was finishing his degree. This is what people need to see about the value of information and communications technology. We can give new life, layers of meaning, impetus, articulation and hope to people who had all types of difficulties before. When asked what he remembered about all the technology, he replied that the day he said “Hello, Mum”, that is, when it came up on the screen, was his favourite day. For these reasons, I appeal to the Minister to support the motion and not press this extraordinary amendment.

Mr. Norris

I am very happy to second the motion although I had not anticipated doing so until a few minutes ago. Once again my colleague, Senator O'Toole, has highlighted an important area and all sides of the House are concerned and committed to trying to get something done about it. It is a pity that a motion such as this has to be amended but, unfortunately, any time a word such as "denounces" appears in a motion, it is almost guaranteed to be opposed. Perhaps it is significant that we should have a vote on this. There are areas where all of us, including the Government side, can agree. The first section of the motion welcomes measures the Government has taken but it goes on to highlight some deficiencies. It is part of the role of the Seanad to do this although it is understandable that the Government side would prefer to have an uninterrupted paean of praise for what the Government does.

I am also glad the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is present. We have long experience of him in the House and we know that he has a humane approach and that the points made, even if they are contentious, will be directed by him to the centres of power.

It is shameful that parents have had to go to the courts in recent years and place themselves at personal financial risk and endure all the trauma in addition to caring for children with difficulties. There is an obligation on the Oireachtas, as the motion suggests, to encourage the drafting of legislation to secure and protect the rights of people, especially children, with disabilities. I hope the Minister will have some information that the Government proposes to do this.

Senator O'Toole spoke about early intervention being important. I would like to add to that and support him in what he said. There is a need for early and consistent intervention because the tragedy is that sometimes children with disabilities have a special needs teacher who, for some reason, is taken away. I am familiar with a case which I raised on the Adjournment some time ago concerning a family with several handicapped children, including one autistic child who was making some progress with a speech therapist. The therapist was taken away and the par ents said to me that the tragedy was not just that the child was stuck at that point but that he started regressing. That is the other side to the heart warming story of the initiation of communication which Senator O'Toole, whose personal experience it was, placed on the record.

The motion is timely. We need to examine how the system operates in practice. The motion includes the point that each child's psychological report list the resources required for every child with special needs and that schools be given the resources to meet the child's needs. Without a report one is operating in the dark. I understand that there are many situations where the absence of this psychological report is an impediment because, without it, the child does not get the help he or she needs. Teachers experience practical difficulties in getting these children assessed. This is a problem which needs to be examined.

I have mentioned the idea of consistency. I wish to highlight how wonderful these programmes work when they are implemented but they must be extended. I attended the Marlborough Street Central Model Schools and saw the wonderful work done there as a result of the Breaking the Cycle scheme. However, these marvellous children are given hope and potential and are then dumped because the scheme does not extend into secondary and third levels. If we are serious about curing disadvantage and inequality, this scheme should be continued up to the point where a young person is fully educated in line with his or her capacity.

The other reason I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in the debate is that, partly due to Senator O'Toole's promptings, I was asked to speak at a very moving and fascinating conference of special needs teachers in St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra a few months ago. I met many people and heard their difficulties. Some of them have been in touch with me since.

Coincidentally, in the past couple of days I received a letter which enclosed a document, the contents of which I would like to put on record. It is from a wonderful teacher in the west. She says:

I teach a language class in a particular school. My class of seven children ranges in age from four to eight. They have language disorder and other problems which mean that they do not understand what is being said and of course cannot express themselves. Their non-verbal IQs range from average to above average to superior.

That is an extraordinary paragraph describing this intelligence locked into a body which finds it impossible to communicate without assistance . She goes on to say:

My plea is that every language class have a full-time classroom assistant, as I understand is the case in other countries. Due to the range in age, ability, language difficulties etc. these children need individual small-group work, seven individual curricula.

Here again is a very potent point. When there are children with a variety of disabilities, each of them needs a curriculum tailor-made for his or her needs. The teacher stated:

The classroom assistant ensures that while I am working with individuals and small groups she can attend to the other children under my direction. Therefore all are working to full potential. I am very lucky to have had that situation for the last three years [again this point is worth noting] as FÁS provided me with a classroom assistant. She has been invaluable but she finishes in October and my seven beautiful children will be the losers.

We should not just rely on FÁS to provide classroom assistants. They should be an integral part of the scheme, and this story from the coalface indicates that.

This teacher's document is clearly laid out and in it she says that a language disorder class was established in her school in 1992. Currently it caters for seven pupils as per Department regulations. The Department of Education and Science has a fine statement objective that people should be given appropriate education with as little segregation of those with special needs as is necessary. The people on the ground are the ones who have to implement these objectives.

These pupils travel from various parts of the county, some leaving home at 7.30 a.m. and not returning until 5 p.m. While language disorder is their primary problem, many of them have a variety of problems, for example, autistic spectrum disorder, Asperger's syndrome, dyspraxia, ADD and ADHD. Their ages span from four years to eight years approximately, thus necessitating individual curriculum ranging from junior infants to second or third class. Because of this and due to the very personalised attention each pupil must receive, the class teacher and school principal feel strongly that a special needs assistant must be provided on a full-time basis in this class. This is to ensure that at all times all pupils are working to their full potential and getting the maximum benefits possible from their full time in the class, which is only two years.

The school is now formally applying for a full-time special needs assistant to be sanctioned by the Department, commencing in September 2001. Given the short period of time the children are in the language classes – two years – a classroom assistant is needed so that this time would be fully utilised. The children are at different stages in the curriculum. In this school they range from junior infants to second or third class and they need intensive work. Classroom assistants can work with one small group under direction. Many of the children have poor concentration and therefore find it difficult to work on their own for any length of time. This is further exacerbated by their speech and language difficulties.

An adult is needed to bring the children to mainstream classes and stay with them, particularly in this school where they work on computers, take part in physical education and use computers for religion class. These children also need to be kept under observation during break times. They can be difficult in the yard. They are children with special needs and they can have special irritating qualities. There are difficulties with using toilet facilities and other physical areas such as dressing. There is a high level of administration with this class, involving outside bodies, schools, health boards, parents, meetings, the compilation of reports etc.

I am glad to have the opportunity to make this case and I will be happy to give the Minister the details of this school so that he may give his attention to it.

Mr. Kett

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"commends the Minister for Education and Science on the substantial increase in resources being made available to special education;

welcomes the Minister's proposals:

– to establish a National Council for Special Education,

– to hold a Forum on Special Education, and

– to introduce a Disabilities (Education and Training) Bill;

welcomes in particular the Minister's announcement that the Disabilities (Education and Training) Bill will clarify and copperfasten the rights and entitlements of people with disabilities to appropriate support services and facilitate the delivery of these services in an efficient and effective manner which has full regard to the needs and entitlements of the children in question and their parents; and

calls on the Minister for Education and Science to bring forward the Disabilities (Education and Training) Bill at the earliest possible date and to continue to build on the unprecedented progress which he has made in developing our special education services.".

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Treacy, to the House and I thank my colleague, Senator Ormonde, for allowing me speak first.

I wholeheartedly concur with the element of the Private Members' motion which welcomes the substantial resources being made available to special education and for the consideration being given to the setting up of the national council for special education and the work of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in the whole area of special needs. The programme for Government was an ambitious programme as it related to disabilities. Any fair-minded person will agree when I say that our Ministers have done a magnificent job. Those of us engaged in the area of working with people with disability accept that there is no magic wand and no quick fix solution to ridding ourselves of all the ills that prevail in the area.

No Government has done as much as this one in dealing with the needs of people with disability. The motion suggests that legislation should be drafted immediately to protect the rights of people with disability. To do that would be to ignore the plethora of equality legislation brought through the House by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue. It also disregards the fact that we are introducing a disabilities Bill determined to copperfasten everything enshrined in legislation to date. I expect all of us and those working with the disabled will be pleased with the outcome of that Bill.

The motion goes on to say that parents of children with special needs need to be consulted in determining appropriate placements for their children. I agree, and in my experience that happens. Parents are not always the best adjudicators and the best people to assess the needs of a child as they are not always totally objective. That is understandable because by their nature they are blinded with love, affection and a need to do the utmost for their child.

I recall an incident where a teenager was seeking a placement on a skill-based training programme in computers. The whole assessment process took place and parents, paramedics and professionals were involved. At the end of the day the placement officers decided the child was not suitable for the course. The course needed good hand function, which the child did not have, to gain full benefit from the course. Of course the parents fell out with the professionals which is understandable because the option for that teenager was to stay home if there was no suitable course available. This illustrates how a parent can be blinded by a desire to do what is best and that he or she will not always be objective. I fully agree that parents must be part of decision making.

The motion also refers to the need for training teachers and personnel working in the area. I agree with those sentiments. Resources are needed to provide for pre-service and in-service training for teachers and special needs assistants irrespective of what placement they are in. The cohort of teachers currently trained and working in the area also needs additional training to bring them up to speed with new approaches, the individualised programmes currently taking place and the complex issue of integration.

I do not disagree with the re-establishment of the special education committee. The report produced by the education committee in 1983 was basically taken as the bible for the provision of services. It was a far-seeing report. Part of it was implemented and its recommendations were exceeded in some instances. Its re-establishment would allow for a review of progress and eval uation of the effectiveness of its provisions, and it could assist future planning. The national council for special education, which the Minister plans and we welcome, will do that job as one of its functions is to establish regional educational officers. They will have an accurate knowledge of what is required in the regions and such information will contribute to a blueprint for the way forward.

The Department does an exceptional job. I recently visited a special school and asked how the situation had improved since 1996. I was astonished to learn that in 1996 the school had 113 pupils, 12 teachers, 3 special assistants and no bus escorts. In 1999, it had 106 pupils, 17 teachers, 10 special assistants and 12 bus escorts. In 2001, the number of pupils is down to 98 as a result of integration, while there are 19 teachers, 18 special assistants and 15 bus escorts. This school was very enthusiastic about recent developments, which constitute significant progress.

The Minister is also to be congratulated on the initiative financing schools to access psychological services outside the NEPS programme. This means that a school not receiving adequate psychological provision can engage suitable practitioners from outside which will shorten waiting lists in this area.

The motion also refers to staff levels being increased to meet the needs of the pupils in schools where year round programmes are in place. There is a problem in recruiting staff for these programmes because people are asked to work through holidays and boards of managements are asked to supervise it. I wonder if it is workable and if more thought is required.

As Senator O'Toole mentioned, technology plays a considerable part in enabling pupils to access the curriculum and I hope they receive even more technological aids. However, instead of being assigned to a school, a computer should be assigned to an individual whose learning tool it becomes. No one gets real benefit if it is used by many. Also, the resources should be provided to train teachers and children in their use because many pieces of equipment are not fully used.

I again congratulate the Government on the job it is doing which, as someone who works in the area, I appreciate. We honoured our commitments given when we entered Government in 1997.

Mr. D. Cregan

Why is there an amendment to this motion? There should not be a vote because no one can honestly answer Senator O'Toole's speech. He could talk for a long time on this subject. I can speak from personal experience because I have a nephew requiring special education and for many years I was involved with profoundly handicapped children in Cork. No one should be proud of speaking against this motion.

The Government wants to give the impression that all is well, yet it appealed to the Supreme Court in the Jamie Sinnott case, even though the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, gave an assurance that there would be no appeal. The Government should have accepted the court's recommendations. I compliment Mrs. Sinnott and those who supported her. They went through so much at a time when the State is prosperous. I acknowledge that improvements have been made, but there are still arguments over the few disabled, however they are defined, who are not being educated. There should be a Government Department for the disabled, as there is for less worthy areas.

The proposals are excellent, as is what the previous speaker said, but they have been a long time coming. As someone who got only a primary education, I know that secondary and third level education here is exceptionally good. However, a disabled person finds it difficult to get beyond primary education and that level is not as good as the others. As a society, we do not have the will to help people whom we classify as a small minority. As politicians, we heard how people spoke about us after the Sinnott case and we are slowly learning the lesson that we must face this problem. The internationally known COPE foundation, which has been in Cork since the 1950s when tuberculosis was a problem, can teach us much. Why do we not listen?

The amendment calls for a forum on special education but that is in the motion, as is the call for a disabilities education and training Bill. Why is there an amendment? This is my first time to make a party political speech in this House because the Government is creating a political discussion. Yet on all sides, Senators feel that this should not be a political debate, but that we should all say "Yes" to the motion.

It is unfair to the people we talk about because for far too long they were not discussed. We have never had so much money, as the Minister knows. Once a Minister could not even promise extra hospital beds but now we talk about sporting arenas and other projects. We have bettered ourselves in recent years but there are not enough improvements. Those referred to by Senator O'Toole are the people who can tell the Government what is needed.

Senator O'Toole is right in saying that trying to please different groups has been a problem. It should be left to one agency. Special people should be trained, brought in and paid. The disabled are entitled to that. I have seen many children who are taken care of by just one person, the child's mother or father, and that has gone on for too long. It is not fair to the parents and, most importantly, to the children. It is great that the first words Mr. Brosnan spoke after 20 years were "Hello, Ma." We have equipment and information technology that can help get the best out of children with special needs. The specialists say that such children can become above-average with just a little training. We have a responsibility but we are slow to act.

That the State appealed the Sinnott case on a question of principle was appalling. If I was a representative of the Government, I would let my feelings be known at parliamentary level. The State should not have appealed that case. It should have let it go and assisted the family in every way possible. Parents and children should not have been brought through the courts to prove a point, just as we should not be treating the matter in a political fashion tonight by looking for a vote. There should not be a vote on this motion. I know that the Minister of State is prepared to say that he agrees with the motion, but we should not play politics with the disabled. We have done that for long enough.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this very sensitive issue. To suggest that we would become political on this issue is wrong.

Mr. D. Cregan

What is the Government side doing? It is opposing the motion.

Ms Ormonde

I am delighted to endorse the amendment on the basis that I want to talk about what the Government is doing and the achievements made to date. To suggest that we are not doing anything is wrong.

Mr. D. Cregan

I did not say that.

Ms Ormonde

I could have interrupted the Senator but I did not do so. I have clear points to make. I know as much as any Member about this area and I appreciate how knowledgeable Senator O'Toole is. To suggest that there are no other knowledgeable people preparing the legislation is wrong, and Senator O'Toole would agree with that. The Department has access to a range of expertise in dealing with this issue. This subject is a sensitive one for many parents and families, and the House should deal with it properly and support the provision of resources and facilities for special education for young people.

The Government is committed to this matter and that commitment began in 1998 when the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, acknowledged the rights of those students. He made no bones about the matter and he proceeded to set up programmes to deal with it. I welcome the establishment of the national council which is a clear indication of how we can move forward. Experts with a hands-on approach will be brought in to introduce special programmes and deliver the required services to those in need.

It is wrong for Members to throw their eyes up and say that the Government is doing nothing. I dislike that and do not want Members to leave this House thinking that the Government has not provided a way forward. We may not have got it completely right – what Government does? It is wise not to forget that Governments before this one did nothing to deal with this issue. We are trying to do something by putting the funding into pre-education and special education programmes. We have made a start. It may not be fully-fledged yet but parents have acknowledged the work being done. I welcome the forum that is to be set up. It will be a platform for debate where Members, parents, experts and others can make submissions. I look forward to that and hope it will be the lead-in to a Bill dealing with disability.

I welcome this timely debate tonight. I do not disagree with the points made by Senator O'Toole. I dealt with this area in my other profession. I dealt with the lack of psychological services, but there is a commitment by this Government to bring in those services. Where we cannot provide those services, private psychologists will deal with the issue and the State will refund the cost. Parents and resource teachers, who have made a welcome start in most schools, must be consulted. Training is still necessary for many resource teachers and that is being done.

The Government side of the House is not here to knock the ideas put forward in the motion – it is too sensitive an issue to be debated on a political basis. We are here to see how best we can move forward the special needs programme for young people from primary to secondary to adult level. We need a multi-faceted approach. We need the involvement of health boards, educational psychologists, clinicians, resource teachers and, above all, parents at the core. We should all sing the one tune and not suggest that there were no problems in the past. Since 1998, the Government has made a commitment to this issue and the measures and proposals are there.

I am delighted Senator O'Toole made the points he did. Those points can be incorporated into the Bill dealing with education, training and disability that will soon be brought forward. This is a golden opportunity. There is nothing wrong with what Senator O'Toole has said tonight. I am here to make sure that the points made tonight will be incorporated in the new legislation. That legislation will come after the forum has been set up and has received submissions. We can draw conclusions from that, then draft the Bill and make it law so that never again will we see parents of children with special needs having to worry about their future. The children will be protected at primary and secondary level and into adulthood. There will be a well-funded system and programme in place and educational rights will be protected.

Dr. Henry

I am sorry an amendment has been put down to Senator O'Toole's motion which was very reasonable. The Government has no need to be so defensive—

Ms Ormonde

I was not defensive.

Dr. Henry

—because a great deal of good work has been done. However, there is a great deal more that could be done.

I wish to speak about an area that no-one has mentioned so far, that is the problem that many parents have in getting a diagnosis made for a child with a disability before the child goes to school. This is a serious problem because the parents are in a situation where they do not know from the physical or neurological assessment of the child whether they should make efforts to get the child into mainstream education, as is the desire of most parents, or settle for sending the child to some special school which may be more suitable for him or her.

Debates on waiting lists concentrate constantly on the fact that so many adults are waiting for operations and so forth, but the number of children who are waiting for assessment of various physical, psychological and mental problems is really quite terrible. The fact that seven of the health boards have no neurologist at all let alone a paediatric neurologist is dreadful. This means that children have to be referred to the waiting lists of the three Dublin paediatric hospitals or to Cork, Limerick or Galway. This is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Midland Health Board does not have any neurologist, nor does the Mid-Western Health Board nor the North Western Health Board. This has to be looked at because many of the disabilities which children in school have are, in fact, neurological.

There are extremely long waiting lists for people with ENT problems. Much has been said tonight about communication and the fact that children are diagnosed so late with deafness. This is another serious problem for which there are some easy remedies in many cases and, if not, there are facilities available which could be used for the child. It is very important that we try to address these issues rather than just looking at the situation in isolation. Operations for the children who are on the waiting lists for ENT operations may make all the difference to how they get on in school. I know the Government is working on it but it is something we have to recognise is of great importance.

Senator O'Toole stressed the various problems there can be at school for children with disabilities, and the great help provided by classroom assistants, resource teachers and so on. I am glad to be able to congratulate the Government about something tonight and I am delighted to have some constituents who are involved in hospitals – some are hospital governors – in the public gallery tonight. It is a huge leap forward that we now have proper national schools in children's hospitals. A child with any type of disability or a prolonged illness who is out of school for any length of time or on and off if it is a relapsing problem is extraordinarily serious for the child. Play therapy is important in these schools for younger children and the more support we can get there the better. I congratulate all those who have been involved in bringing this forward.

The area of psychological assessment is very serious because if one does not diagnose the psychological problems the child has they may be extremely disruptive for the class and cause problems for other children as well as for themselves. I welcome the efforts of the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, in allowing two children per hundred to be sent for psychological assessment to private psychologists to be paid for by the State. It concerns me that there may be six or seven in the hundred who actually need psychological assessment and in fact the more serious children may be sent while those who might benefit most can be the ones who did not appear to have that many problems. We have to work as fast as possible to ensure that all children get psychological assessment if they need it. It is a problem in the courts and in other places that psychological assessments are not available for children. The borderline cases are the ones in fact who are often not seen.

There has been a continuous problem regarding speech therapy, which is not helped by the fact that speech therapists have no proper career structure. This must be addressed and until it is we will not see a proper determined cohort of people who are totally committed to the system. Someone told me the other day that she met a middle aged speech therapist and that she had never met one before. She wondered what happens them as they seem to work in this field for a few years and then go off to some other area of employment. It would be a step forward if we could make their hours more flexible, perhaps to tie them in with school hours which might help to retain more of them within the service. Communication is extremely important, as is language, and unless we can get people into this area we will have a serious problem. Trinity College has been asked to expand the number of places on its speech therapy courses by 15 per year. This will help to remedy the shortages to some extent but of course that will take several years to go through the system.

The lack of information is very hard on parents and I have been told that the special education staff in the Department of Education and Science in Athlone are under such pressure that they are constantly asking for transfers. It is very hard when those who are trying to give out information feel under such pressure that doing their job is an uphill battle all the time. I suggest that they should get the help they need to do the job. At a conference for the parents of disabled children in Longford last weekend an inspector said that was a real problem, so Senator O'Toole's motion is very timely. It is also very important that teachers get the in-service training they need in these areas.

Senator Ormonde said that resource teachers are sometimes untrained. It is bad enough if one is trained but if one is not then it must be terrible. Of course special classroom assistants are important but there is currently no training or standardisation for them either which is badly needed. FÁS did tremendous work in that area which was helped by the fact that frequently the people involved came from the locality and knew the needs of the children in their care. That is a good effort and I would hate to see anything happen to threaten the greater flexibility in the classroom for the teacher involved.

A special education council is to be set up at some point. I am not sure when this will happen or what exactly it will do but I am somewhat concerned that it will make children with special needs feel they are different. I would not like to see that happen because as I have said parents really want their children in the mainstream structure, if at all possible.

Problems seem to start when there is a move to secondary school. Maybe this is because people who work within the primary system can afford to be more flexible without the pressure of exams but certainly complaints have come to me about the transition from primary to secondary. Perhaps we could be more flexible there so that the child stays in the secondary school for core curriculum studies but, if required, can go to a special school for subjects where the special school has better facilities. What we are trying to do is look at the potential of the child to ensure that this is at the centre of all our education.

Many parents have come to me about the difficulties of bringing their disabled children to and from school. On the Order of Business this morning, Senator John Cregan raised the difficulty of getting a disability allowance for one's car in order to carry a disabled passenger. The system is very rigid which is not the fault of those who implement it, and I know that every now and then the Minister for Finance does adjust the system, but it needs to be far more generous than it is at present.

A member of the public approached me about his teenage daughter who has a condition known as drop epilepsy since she was six. She said I told her to be patient when I wrote to her two years ago as it appeared something was going to happen but nothing has happened. One cannot send a child with drop epilepsy, and other problems as well, on the school bus even though she is well able to partake in the general education system. We need to be more flexible when it comes to giving people extra assistance towards the school transport of disabled children. We have been trying to gather all our children into the fold to ensure that none is isolated. Even a decade ago, if children with an ordinary physical illness had to go into hospital for any length of time they were bound to drop behind in the education system but that is now a thing of the past. There are other areas which we can make a thing of the past by making alterations. No parents should have to go to court looking for schooling for their children.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Mr. Treacy)

Tá áthas orm an seans seo a ghlacadh chun an rún tábhachtach seo a phlé um thráthnóna.

I very much welcome the opportunity to welcome the issues raised on this motion which is before the House this evening. I am proud and privileged to have been part of a Government which has been responsible for an unprecedented level of development in special education services and I assure the House that the Minister for Education and Science has every intention of ensuring that the major progress achieved in recent years will continue. At the same time, I fully recognise that much work remains to be done before we can be satisfied that all children with special needs are receiving the support they require when and where they require it.

It is an unfortunate reality that the educational requirements of our special needs children were seriously neglected over many years. We must all accept that and we are all culpable in that area. While other priorities were being pursued, children with special needs were left to survive on a service which was characterised by inadequate resources, an unsympathetic bureaucracy and an inefficient and often unresponsive system of service delivery.

In this situation it is little wonder that parents of special needs children have felt abandoned by the State and considered that they had no alternative but to resort to litigation to assert their children's rights. As Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, I find this situation entirely unacceptable. Parents of children with special needs have enough to contend with without having to fight their way through a bureaucratic minefield simply to have their children's needs addressed.

Mr. D. Cregan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

The challenges faced by the Government were formidable. Major improvements in services were required right across the spectrum of special needs. In some cases, existing services required major expansion. In other cases, entirely new services were required to address serious gaps in provision. The reality is that the level of improvement required could not be achieved by us overnight. However, I am satisfied that enormous progress has been made and that the foundations are now being firmly laid for a special education system of which we can be truly proud.

By way of illustration, I want to refer to some of the significant developments in special education services which have taken place under the Government since 1997. Prior to a decision taken by the Government in October 1998 children with special educational needs had no automatic entitlement to a response to those needs. The extent to which support services were provided was entirely dictated by resource availability in any given year. The Department of Education and Science was allocated a finite number of special teacher posts and special needs assistant posts. When these were allocated, no further support was available in the year in question. Invariably, the level of resources made available was inadequate and as a consequence many children with special needs were simply left without the support they required.

All this changed in 1998 when the Government took the unprecedented step of deciding that all children with special needs in the primary system should have an automatic entitlement to the supports they require, irrespective of their level of need or location. In effect, the Government introduced a demand-driven system where the needs of the child, rather than the availability of resources, became the deciding factor. As a direct result of this decision the number of resource teachers supporting children with special needs in the primary system has increased from 104 to approximately 1,000 teachers today and the number of special needs assistants in the system has increased from fewer than 300 to approximately 2,500 people.

The Department of Education and Science is continuing to allocate additional resource teachers and special needs assistants in response to identified needs. The significance of this development should not be understated. No longer are children with special needs at the mercy of annual funding exercises. They are now included automatically. The level of support provided is dictated solely by the needs of the individual child.

Further important developments which have been introduced by the Government include the introduction of escorts on special school transport services. Under this development, the Department of Education and Science has made funding available to schools to facilitate the appointment of escorts on more than 600 routes carrying children to special schools and special classes. In 1998 the Department of Education and Science formally recognised the distinct educational needs of certain children with autism. Prior to that decision, such children were catered for in a variety of settings, none of which was dedicated specifically to the needs of children with autism. As a result of this development a total of 89 special classes dedicated to children with autism have been established. Each such class caters for a maximum of six pupils and has the support of a class teacher and two special needs assistants. Pupils attending these classes also attract special capitation funding at a rate of £451.50 per child.

In the current year the Minister for Education and Science secured extra funding of £2.5 million to facilitate the extension of education programmes for children with autism, through the month of July. The development has been welcomed as providing a valuable continuation of education services for the children in question and is based on the view that such children can regress where services are withdrawn for lengthy periods. He also secured funding of £2.6 million to support the development of a nationwide pre-school service for children with autism. In addition to the above measures, he established a special task force on autism to advise him on how services for children with autism could be further developed. He expects to receive the report of the task force by the end of this month. I am confident that this report will make a valuable contribution to further improving services in this area.

Senators O'Toole, Cregan and others referred to technology. Recent technological developments have brought on stream a range of equipment and software packages which can be of particular benefit to the educational progress of children with disabilities. The Department of Education and Science has responded to these developments by substantially increasing the funding made available to schools in this area. The scale of the increase is illustrated by the fact that in 1998 funding of just over £500,000 was made available in this area. In the current year the Department will allocate approximately £3 million for special equipment. It is important to recognise that we have invested £280 million in the IT 2000 technology investment fund. We have invested £550 million in the third level programme for research and technological development and another £550 million in Science Foundation Ireland. Huge emphasis has been put into this area and we hope to create world class research, technology and scientific centres where we may be able to develop many of the technologies needed to assist those young people who need special assistance through technology and other aids.

I mention the above developments to give Members an idea of the scale of development which the Government has undertaken in the special education area. As I have said, much work remains to be done. While the substantial increase in resources made available to schools to address special needs has been warmly welcomed, such resources are only part of the answer.

Our objective is to develop a special education service which is underpinned by a clear and comprehensive declaration of the rights and entitlements of children with disabilities and their parents, which is in line with best international practice, which has the special needs of the individual child and the rights of the child's parents at its core and which is structured in such a way as to ensure that all children with special needs are identified at the earliest possible stage and that their needs are responded to on an immediate and appropriate basis.

During the course of last year, the Minister, Deputy Woods, arranged for a fundamental review of the Department's structures and operating procedures. This review was undertaken by Mr. Seán Cromien, former Secretary General of the Department of Finance, and the Department's role in the special education area was considered by Mr. Cromien and his team as part of this review. A key conclusion of this review was that the over-centralised structure of the Department and its excessive involvement in day to day operational issues of education in general across the country was impeding its capacity to focus on the core areas of policy development and quality assurance. The difficulties identified were particularly evident in the area of special education where the Department's excessive involvement in day to day operational issues was seen as impeding its capacity to plan and develop a special education service, which is in line with best international practice.

To address this situation, Mr. Cromien strongly endorsed the early implementation of the recommendations of the planning group on special education which had been established in the Department of Education and Science, which proposed to "make recommendations on the arrangements which should be put in place to ensure the most effective provision of a high quality co-ordinated service at all stages of the education system, for students with disabilities."

The key recommendation brought forward by the planning group on special education and endorsed by Mr. Cromien was for the establishment of a national council for special education. The role of the council will be to carry out research and provide expert policy advice to the Minister for Education and Science on special education issues, to have overall operational responsibility for the dissemination of information and the co-ordination and delivery of special education services at local level through a network of local offices, to establish a consultative forum to facilitate inputs from the education partners and to establish expert advisory groups to provide up-to-date research and advice on special education issues.

I know Senators are supportive of this development, which I welcome, and I thank all those who spoke so positively about the developments thus far. I am confident the National Council for Special Education will make a major contribution to our aim of developing an effective and efficient special education service which is responsive to the needs of children with disabilities and their parents at local area level. I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister for Education and Science has received Government approval for the establishment of the council at the earliest possible date and it is his intention to proceed with this development with all possible speed.

It has been suggested that the special education review committee be re-established. I would point out that the proposed structure of the National Council for Special Education includes provision for a consultative forum involving the education partners and the establishment of expert advisory groups to address issues relating to special education services. I would see any future reviews of policy and services as being facilitated within these structures.

As I have said, I regard it as totally unacceptable that any parent, particularly a parent of a child with special needs, should find it necessary to resort to litigation to secure their entitlements to an appropriate education service. I regard it as equally unacceptable that decisions on support services for children with special needs should be taken without having due regard to the needs and concerns of the parents of the children involved. Members of the House have highlighted the importance of placing the needs of the individual child at the centre of all decisions and the need to involve the child's parents throughout the process. The Minister, Deputy Woods, fully endorses this view. He intends to hold a forum on special education in November. The objective is to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to express their views on how we can best define and protect the rights and entitlements of people with disabilities, in particular young people.

Although the Government has been responsible for a very significant development of the special education system, I am conscious that many parents of children with disabilities are uneasy about a system of funding and service which is dependent on the policies of the Government of the day. Such parents would wish to see greater statutory guarantees for their children's future. Guarantees exist at present, not least in Article 42 of the Constitution and also in the Education Act, 1998, and the Education (Welfare) Act, 2001. Both these Acts, which were promoted by the Government, provide very wide guarantees for the education of children with disabilities. In addition to these education-specific Acts, the Government has sponsored the National Disability Authority Act, 1999, and the Equal Status Act, 2000, both of which have important provisions with implications for the education of people with disabilities.

It is accepted, however, that there is a need for legislation which will specifically address in a comprehensive and focused way the education of children with disabilities. For that reason, the Minister for Education and Science intends to bring proposals to Government very soon for a Bill, the working title of which is the Education (Disabilities) Bill, 2001. In preparing this Bill the Minister will be guided by the following principles.

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes a person's right to fully participate in society, including education. In particular, children and young people with disabilities have the same right to an appropriate education as their peers who do not have disabilities. An appropriate education is one which gives the best opportunity to the child or young person to achieve his or her full potential. Guaranteeing the right to participate in and benefit from education is a necessary prerequisite to guaranteeing equality of opportunity generally for people with disabilities. It is in the public interest that young people with disabilities should leave school with the skills necessary to participate to the greatest extent possible in an integrated and inclusive way in the social and economic activities of Irish society and to live independent and fulfilled lives. We have come a long way in this whole area of integration and opportunity.

Special education provision for a child or young person with a disability should have particular regard to his or her particular disability and special educational needs. Parents have a right to be consulted at all stages of the development of programmes of education for their children and during the delivery of the programmes and to have their views respected. The education of children and young people with disabilities requires an eclectic, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary approach where the needs of the child or young person should be the paramount concern of all professionals and agencies. To the greatest extent practicable consistent with the needs of the child, the wishes of his or her parents, the efficient provision of an education for children with whom the child is to be educated and the efficient use of resources, education for a child with disabilities should be provided in an integrated setting in an ordinary school. School environments should be safe and should to the greatest extent practicable make accommodation for children and young people with disabilities. These facilities are included in the design of all modern developments and constructions now being authorised and proceeded with. The State is obliged as a matter of constitutional duty to provide resources to ensure children with disabilities receive at least the minimum education necessary to enable them to develop their potential.

We want to provide for an independent mediation and appeals process to assist in the resolution of disputes about the education of children with special educational needs. The setting up of such a process will not, of course, infringe the rights of parents to bring matters before the courts if they wish. Our objective is that in the event of disagreement this Bill will provide parents with a faster, less onerous method of resolving disputes than that provided by the courts.

I am fully aware that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Sinnott case has caused much concern among some parents of children with disabilities. Some of this concern has been caused because the judgment has been either misrepresented to parents or misunderstood by them as undermining the rights to education of children with special needs. Nothing could be further from the truth as the court has, in effect, copperfastened their rights as first elaborated in 1993 in the O'Donoghue case. What the Supreme Court decision says is that the constitutional duty of the State to provide for primary education does not extend beyond the age of 18 years. That was the primary focus of that Supreme Court case. It was not the political wish to appeal that case. However, the primary legal advice available was that the State was obliged to appeal the case. We took that advice, went before the Supreme Court and the learned judges on the bench of the Supreme Court took a decision that this is where primary education should end. It is reasonable and fair that we should take that into account.

Notwithstanding that, however, the State through the health boards makes very substantial provision for the training and development of young people with disabilities who have left the school system. The fact that these services are not provided in primary schools, staffed by primary school teachers, does not take from the fact that a range of services are provided for adults with disabilities in settings appropriate to their ages, abilities and stage of personal development. These services are in no way jeopardised by the Supreme Court judgment. The challenge we all face is to develop and refine these services in line with best international practice. The Forum on Special Education will provide an opportunity for debate on how best to proceed and the outcome of these discussions will inform the future Education (Disabilities) Bill.

Reference was made to the standard of primary education in Ireland. Senators will be aware that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has decided to create MediaLab Europe in the centre of Dublin city, with which we are pleased.

Mr. O'Toole

Some of the universities are very displeased with that.

Mr. Treacy

They may be. They were also displeased about Science Foundation Ireland.

Mr. O'Toole

I support the Minister of State on this.

Mr. Treacy

Competition is the life of trade and opportunity is created by those who are prepared to create a new environment for everyone so that the maximum input can be created for the great talent of our people, which is very important. The MIT did an assessment in eight countries in Europe on all facets of education. We scored very high on second level and third level but on primary level we were so far ahead of the rest in Europe that they took the decision to come here. That is a tribute to Irish education in all areas.

Mr. O'Toole

It is a tribute to Irish primary teachers.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole will be called upon in due course.

Mr. Treacy

In response to Senator O'Toole, I was about to make the point that the grounding given to the youth of this nation at primary level stands us all through life and has stood to us over the years. It is that capacity at primary level which creates the opportunity for young people to embrace so successfully second level and third level education. We respect the contribution of primary teachers and thank them for that. We respect the contribution of second level teachers and also the outstanding academics in third level. Collectively we have a quality, rounded education system equal to any in the world, if not the best in the world.

Mr. O'Toole

We will shortly pay them for all that.

Mr. Treacy

Since the appointment of Deputy Woods as Minister for Education and Science, he has attached particular priority to the special education area. We are pleased to have been associated with the major progress achieved in this area. It is the Minister's intention to continue to build on this progress and I am confident the measures I have outlined will provide the basis for a special education service of which we can all be proud in the years ahead.

Mr. Ryan

When I meet parents of a child with special needs, why do they always tell me about all the problems they have? They are obviously living on a different planet from the Minister. There are no more problems and there are endless resources available so they must be making it up.

Mr. Treacy

I never used the word "endless".

Mr. Ryan

At the beginning of his speech, when contrasting the situation post-1998 with that which prevails currently, the Minister said that the level of support provided is dictated solely by the needs of the individual child. He did not qualify this by specifying an amount. Either the Minister is codding us or he thinks he knows what the child needs better than the parents. I do not believe he is foolish enough to believe the latter, therefore the former is obviously true and the Minister is having us on. The parents know that it is not true. Nobody disputes the education system is better than it used to be. The very first words of Senator O'Toole's motion are: "that Seanad Éireann welcomes the substantial increase". What else could we expect in a country that is nearly 100% richer than it was six years ago? However, to pretend that we have somehow found a new and wondrous panacea, where all needs are met and all problems are solved, which is the effective implication of the Minister's speech, is to fly in the face of reality.

I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the House to say they do not know parents of children with special needs who still have a long list of problems not being met. They know it is not true even though the Minister has said it is true. The Minister is making it up and the only way it can become true is by getting explicit recognition that services must be based on the right of people to have their needs met and a constitutional amendment is needed to recognise that.

The Department of Finance is rigorously and resolutely opposed to a rights-based framework of support for people with disabilities generally. Given that hostility, it is clear that the Department of Finance will not tolerate anything that gives people rights to services based on needs exclusively. The Education Act does not say that, it merely states "as far as is practicable". When that Bill went through this House, in my innocence I debated with parents of children with special needs whether that was significant. When Fianna Fáil was in opposition, it had enormous fun at the expense of the then Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, in a previous case. Members of that party were in paroxysms of anger about a proposed appeal to the Supreme Court that was not pursued because the then Minister withdrew it. Having got into a paroxysm about that, they suddenly discover when in government they have to do likewise.

Governments do not have to do what the Attorney General advises them. He is not the managing director of the Government. He gives it his legal advice, and the experience of judicial reviews of advice from Attorneys General shows they are wrong almost as often as they are right. It is outrageous for any politician to hide behind the arguable and disputable advice of an Attorney General.

Mr. Treacy

The Senator does not believe in advice.

Mr. Ryan

I have no problem with advice and I take it from everybody. The Minister for Finance, with whom I do not agree but for whom I have a great affection, claims to take much advice but makes up his own mind. The Government did not make up its own mind, it ducked, ran away and hid behind legal advice.

Mr. Treacy

The Government makes up its mind on everything.

Mr. Ryan

I could respect the Government if, having decided the High Court judgment was too broad-ranging, had too many implications and needed to be constrained by further interpretation, it therefore took responsibility and did that. That would have been a decision for which people take responsibility. I cannot accept the decision to run away, hide behind advice and blame somebody who is not accountable to anybody. The advice of the Attorney General is rarely published, but I cannot accept it is not possible to publish it because there is no precedent for doing so. There has been a succession of cases of this and previous Governments refusing to disclose advice given by the Attorney General.

Ms Ormonde

What is the Senator talking about?

Mr. Ryan

If Senator Ormonde does not know what I am talking about, she and I are not living on the same planet. I am talking about the fact that the Government put Kathryn Sinnott through an extraordinary rigmarole in the name of legal advice that it could easily have ignored. It would not take responsibility for its own decision, so hid behind the unpublished advice of the Attorney General and pretended it was the fault of somebody else. It does not do this when good things happen, only when things happen that it does not like.

Although the question of whether the amount involved is £500,000 or £3 million is important, the fundamental issue is whether we accept that the service for children with special needs is a matter of right or privilege. By digging under the Minister's rhetoric, it is clear that it is essentially a privilege. The Government will do as much as it can and what it can do depends on the resources that are available. The Government made decisions over where resources should go, and 60% of the expenditure in tax cuts and other forms of expenditure went to people in the top 30% of the income bracket.

Mr. Treacy

That is not true.

Mr. Ryan

That is what the Combat Poverty Agency said

Mr. Treacy

The socio-economic report—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ryan is in possession.

Mr. Ryan

The clear priority of the Government was to give money to the top 30% of income earners who, like me, already had enough. This is the most cosseted and best looked after group in Irish society and it has been looked after by successive Governments. The Government had more resources than any other and decided to use them to look after those people. If it does that, it cannot give rights to people who are rarely in that income bracket and are the most vulnerable. That is why in 1937, Éamon de Valera recognised there was a plateau below which he would not let society descend and therefore instituted the principle of free primary education.

One can argue both sides of the Supreme Court decision because it was asked to do something that should have been resolved through the political process. It was an appalling reactionary judgment in the language used and we may be in for a succession of reactionary judgments from what is becoming manifestly a reactionary Supreme Court determined to get away from the idea of enforcing rights and hand the job back to the Oireachtas. It did not have to go to the Supreme Court and I invite somebody in the Government to say that the principle of free primary education, which Éamon de Valera insisted on putting into the Constitution, has worked extremely well and what we need to do now is extend that right.

This Government listens to advice and all the advice it gets is that we should not do this, but in a progressive society with a commitment to those who get lost in the competitive marketplace, the best way to do it is through a guarantee of basic rights and the best place to guarantee basic rights is not in law but in the Constitution—

Mr. D. Cregan

The Constitution. That is correct.

Mr. Ryan

—and there was not a mention of that in the Minister of State's contribution. That is why the parents I meet will not recognise the world of service the Minister of State described in his contribution.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Senator Ryan was true to form. From the moment he stood up to the moment he sat down, he did not make one positive reference to developments in the area of special needs education over the past number of years.

Mr. D. Cregan

That is not fair. The Constitution is the answer.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I cannot recall one positive reference; perhaps I am wrong. He was typically true to form but I would be disappointed if he was inconsistent. The consistency of his negativism never fails to amaze me, but then again—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will the Senator address the motion?

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I am not inclined to personalise matters but since Senator Ryan has chosen to be the supreme legal arbiter of what is right and wrong in the courts of the land, I will leave that side to him. I want to talk about real people, pre-school and pre-teenage children and those children who have been neglected to a great extent over the years, but not in recent years.

I welcome the motion tabled by Senator O'Toole. I was not surprised by his contribution because he has always been extremely constructive, in so far as he can, about what can be identified as the real issues in education. Nobody here could seriously quibble with the underlying principles he has articulated. They are laudable and they are at the heart of what we all want for those who have been targeted as children with special needs.

Unfortunately, I cannot support Senator O'Toole's motion tonight because parts of the process he is proposing are wrong. They are certainly not parts I could support, although I endorse fully the underlying principle. Senator O'Toole, as distinct from other Senators, was gracious enough to acknowledge that significant improvements have been made in the provision of remedial and special educational services for children with special needs.

Along with other speakers on this side of the House, including Senator Kett and Senator Ormonde as well as the Minister of State, I would be the first to admit that there have been serious examples of neglect and indifference in our education system in terms of the provisions that were needed for the education of special needs children over the years.

One of the greatest challenges confronting the State, educational institutions, policy makers, teachers and indeed parents has been the identification of appropriate educational programmes and the provision of appropriate places, whether integrated or otherwise, for children with mild, moderate, severe and profound mental handicap. I hope I will have an opportunity to comment on that in a moment. Our record in the area of physical handicap has gone from being reasonable to varying between good and excellent. Most people would concur with me on that. Specifically in the area of mental handicap, however, our record until recently has highlighted serious flaws and gaps and the Minister of State, Senator Kett and Senator Ormonde conceded that.

Successive Irish Governments have had a good record in recent times, even by any international standards, in making provisions for the mild and the moderately mentally handicapped. We have come a long way from the chaotic days of the 1970s, and Senator O'Toole would remember that time well, when I had to deal with these problems at the coal face not a mile away from here. At that time children were assessed usually by the class teacher, who had no training or special expertise, as being slow learners who were unable to keep up with the mainstream class. They had some intellectual backwardness and were put to the back of the class, and untrained teachers had to cope with them as best they could. In the school where I taught we were fortunate to have a special class but invariably the special class teachers did not have the specialist training to deal with these children, but some kind of paltry effort was made to set them aside. Some people referred to that as segregation and that it was appalling but nevertheless some kind of specialist attention was given to them in smaller groups.

There was no formal system to address child care needs in those days, and no formal recognition of the distinct educational needs of such children. That was due to ignorance. We were not able to identify the problem but we have come a long way since then in the provision of programmes and services for the mild and even moderately mentally handicapped, as well as the provision of specialist training for teachers. I realise it is not enough, and all the previous speakers adverted to that, but we have come a long way in the provision of specialist training for teachers. All schools now have access to remedial education, as Senator O'Toole knows, and I have to commend him for the major campaign he waged in ensuring that successive Ministers progressively came to that point. We now have remedial education, and thank God for it. It is not before its time and it should have been provided years earlier. Special classes are no longer provided on an ad hoc basis. There is a clear programme for the provision of special classes.

Stated policy has always been that, to the maximum extent possible, children with special needs should be integrated in the local school, a policy that is becoming more and more popular. Little provision was made for such a stated policy. In fact, there were isolated cases of children for whom there was no provision. They were identified as special cases by local teachers and they were in a terrible plight. They were isolated and at the mercy of a system which was not flexible enough to identify and meet their special needs requirements.

We have come a long way and on the basis of the few examples I have given and the examples given by the Minister of State and my colleagues in the House, a considerable number of programmes have been put in place in ordinary schools and schools in disadvantaged areas. These include remedial education and classroom support, as I know well from teachers in my constituency, and the provision of a more structured and formal system of special education in terms of special classes and special schools.

One of the terrible nightmares in Irish society and indeed in other modern democracies, and this was adverted to by previous speakers, has been the plight of the severe and profoundly mentally handicapped, and the plight of their parents and families. I want to tell a brief factual story which is an example of official attitudes to this problem in the early 1980s and how they failed to face up to a terrible dilemma. I first want to chart briefly recent significant progress in this area. A landmark development, and I will provide a relevant quote in a moment, in the provision of a package of measures for children with special needs was initiated in late 1998 with the launch of a £4 million package by the Minister's predecessor to specifically target and address decades of appalling neglect. That neglect was in no small way due to profound ignorance of what was required, and my story, if I get a chance to tell it, will illustrate that very poignantly. That was profound ignorance on the part of successive Governments of the needs of the severe and profoundly mentally handicapped.

In the early 1980s, four Members of the other House, of which I was one – another is a senior member of the Opposition in this House – were approached by two families, one on the north side and one on the south side. They each had a six year old son deemed to be intellectually deficient and their cases had been written off by the Department of Education. One family was advised by a senior official in the Department at the time that the best advice he could give was that the six year old boy should be placed in private long-term psychiatric care, as the family financial resources would allow, in other words, put him into a mental institution. That was the solution offered by a senior specialist in the then Department of Education.

Following a request by the parents, the four of us took up the case and met the then Minister of State, Donal Creed, who confronted his officials, overruled them and established a specialist unit. One of those children, who was being directed to a psychiatric institution, has a third level qualification and is living a full life and following a professional career. This illustrates how far we have come from the ignominious, dark days of the 1980s and the preceding decades where, from a lack of knowledge and understanding, grew ignorance, arrogance, indifference and neglect of the plight of the most acutely needful of our special needs children.

I commend the Minister of State for the disability education and training Bill he is to introduce. It will address the statutory rights of children with special needs. From my perspective in a different profession in the 1970s, the problem was one of access, which was impossible because of the lack of assessment. Ordinary teachers with no special training could not assess but were told to do so. The Minister made a commitment to the establishment of a huge cohort of additional psychologists to eliminate this bottleneck. In opening up assessment, accessibility will follow. That is a profound and significant development. There is a need to establish a multi-disciplinary team that will take a more holistic approach to this problem. I welcome recent developments and I commend the Minister of State.

Mr. Gibbons

It was especially interesting to note Senator Fitzgerald's reference to a person who today is leading a full life but who was condemned in the past. Senator O'Toole referred to young Mr. Brosnan and the situation in which he finds himself today. These cases are indicative of the difficulties in the area of special education and our difficulties in understanding the problems these people encounter.

There are keys to everybody's problems and we must find the key to open the lock. Over the past 20 to 30 years special education has become immensely successful. It will always be underfunded because no matter how much it receives it could always do with more. However, that does not mean that it should get unlimited resources. That is not possible and there must be a degree of prioritisation.

Early intervention is vital. There is a need to identify the problems, in so far as they can be categorised, and deal with them. A disturbing trend is that over the past 20 years those identified in mainstream education at a relatively young age as having a problem have been retained in the mainstream system to their detriment so that student numbers do not fall. This is done to retain teachers in mainstream schools. That must be addressed more sympathetically because, ultimately, such an approach means that a person identified as having special needs is denied services. It is wrong.

My wife works in a special school and she points out that while it is easy to identify a Down's syndrome person because of the obvious visible symptoms, we know nothing about the many others who have problems. We cannot identify them and are, therefore, unable to decide what kind of special needs education they require. The greatest deficiency is our lack of knowledge in dealing with the problem. We must continue to try to open the locks to a better understanding.

FÁS workers employed as assistants in special schools were under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment but this function has been transferred to the Department of Education and Science, with the appropriate funding. However, unfortunately, the necessary administrative structures have not been established. It is a nonsense and it means that classrooms throughout the country will lose those who have been making a very significant contribution to the education of people with special needs. That is worse than hypocrisy, it is the height of stupidity. We should not allow these things to happen because, ultimately, we only every now and again get the opportunity to unlock the cage which encloses these people. If we put obstacles in our way, we go in the wrong direction.

Great strides have been made in the area of special education. I commend the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, who made an extraordinary contribution to this area. Ultimately, it is incumbent on us all to try to ensure that we open even one more lock.

Mr. O'Toole

I thank Senators for an informed and passionate debate. Whatever agreements or disagreements I have with the views expressed, I am pleased I moved the motion. This is an election issue and any Government or party that does not recognise that will pay a price.

We have made a proposal to the Minister for Education and Science which solves a difficulty and pulls the wool over the eyes of the Department of Finance. The judgments in this area provide that the needs of children as assessed can be met. It means that in the area of special needs assistance the Minister for Education and Science can ignore the strictures of the Department of Finance.

Senator Gibbons referred to those involved in the FÁS classroom scheme. Those involved are called classroom assistants or school aids. We have submitted to the Minister that a school's needs should be assessed as requiring special needs assistance which means that those involved on a temporary basis under a FÁS or CE scheme can be replaced by full-time special needs assistants, of whom there are 2,500. That is the answer to this problem. We strongly advocate it and would appreciate the support of the Government parties. The Department of Education and Science supports it and would be considerate in its approach.

My motivation in moving this motion derives from what classroom teachers have told me about their difficulties. Those involved in the Irish Association of Teachers in Special Education, who are also members of the INTO, do extraordinary work, which is highly progressive and respected, in research and ensuring that we are aware of the special needs. They are talking about the lack of flexibility, the need for medical backup and assessing children's needs in order to determine the resources which are necessary.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House, for his speech and for the way he delivered it but, as Senator Ryan said, I feel like sending the speech to the parents who write to me week in and week out about the problems they are having with special education. There are problems on the ground and I know where. The Minister of State said, "The State has a constitutional duty to provide the resources to ensure that children with disability receive at least the minimum education necessary to develop their potential."

Mr. D. Cregan

The minimum is all he is saying.

Mr. O'Toole

I agree with that. The Minister of State went on to tell me the Supreme Court says the constitutional duty of the State is to provide primary education, though not beyond the age of 18. The question is very simple. What happens when the State does not provide the minimum education and the person is too old, according to the Supreme Court, to receive primary education?

Ms Ormonde

They will.

Mr. O'Toole

That is completely unacceptable and that is what is wrong. That is the gap that must be bridged. It is what happened in the Sinnot case and there is no gainsaying it. The Government was wrong to appeal the case. Everybody knows it. Nobody in education could support what went on and that is why I appeal to the Minister of State to recognise the issue.

Mr. Treacy

That is a job for the professionals.

Mr. O'Toole

Senator Ryan said there should be a constitutional amendment and I am certain that de Valera, whatever his faults, never intended—

Mr. Treacy

He did not have any.

Mr. O'Toole

—primary education to mean anything other than fundamental basic education as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Charles Haughey signed in New York in the early 1990s. That is the reality.

As long as that gap exists it can be filled in two ways. It can be filled by a constitutional amendment where we define what we mean by "primary education" as "fundamental education", whatever the age. Otherwise we can legislate to ensure that never again will a family have to go through what the Sinnot family did. It was wrong and we know it. There is very little in the debate tonight which divides us. Every proposal I made has been dealt with by someone or other on the Government side. The putting down of amendments could have been done with a scalpel rather than a blunderbuss. There was no reason not to welcome the things I welcomed. They were mentioned in the Minister of State's speech. There was no reason not to denounce a system which compels parents to go to the courts to obtain rights for their children and in his speech the Minister of State agreed that it should not happen.

I proposed that the Minister recognise the right of all citizens to get the education they need and that was also agreed in the speeches tonight. I also mentioned training. I could go through all of my proposals and the Minister of State mentioned them all. He could have come through with all of them. If there was an issue of contention he could have identified it and we could have had the war on that one issue. Nobody did that. It was there to be discussed, but it was not.

I am glad I put down this motion. I am delighted with the level of debate and its comprehensive nature. I appeal once more to the Government side to withdraw its amendment and we would graciously, with the leave of the House, accept that withdrawal. We could then walk out of here with one voice supporting those in our society who have special needs. They need our constant support.

Amendment put.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnFarrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.

Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.

Keogh, Helen.Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Ryan.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.