Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their expositions and engagement with us, not just today but with the political system in general. A number of issues have arisen and it is important that they are teased out. Under the new model, will it be the case that no school will lose out in the allocation of resource and learning support? Does the increase referenced in the budget go beyond demographics and is it connected to this scheme?

The issue of unnecessary labelling has been mentioned. Clearly, that labelling is professionally carried out - "labelling" is not a great word to use but it is what was said. Is it the case that professionals are unnecessarily labelling children or is it simply not desirable that we use labels in the allocation of resources?

Post-primary provision was very carefully described by Ms Griffin using very judicious language. She said it requires further development. In terms of approving provision in primary schools, special classes and autism schools have been established. Many autism schools were established by parents who put in a significant amount of work. Some of the parents are now trying, as the Chairman mentioned, to get provision for their children following their 18th birthdays and into adulthood. We are falling off a cliff in terms of post-primary provision. What is actually being done about that? What post-primary education is in place?

In terms of preschools, I do not think there has been any mention of the Department of Health. Special needs assistants are part of the issue. The Department of Health and HSE are in charge of the system. I find it totally bizarre and disjointed that they decide what SNA resources children will get in preschool. I ask that the responsibility be removed from those bodies and dealt with properly by the Departments of Education and Skills or Children and Youth Affairs, which administers the ECCE scheme. The ECCE scheme is very disjointed. I could not believe the situation pertaining to SNAs when I first came across it. In my county the HSE is involved in their allocation.

It was mentioned that the there is an increase in the prevalence of autism. It is also noted that this may be due to increased diagnosis. Is that actually the case? Is the Department aware of any other issues? Parents and neighbours are aware that there seems to be an increase, and the figures show that. People wonder about causes and reasons. The witnesses have not been definitive in attributing the increase to better diagnosis.

The Department referred to the July provision. The Department also said it was unable to establish a robust evidential basis which justifies the Department's early intervention scheme being limited to certain categories of disability. I would like the witnesses to expand on that, and also the view that legal advice should be sought. Does that mean some children are losing out and if they took a court case to seek early intervention they would succeed?