Mr. Gareth Noble:

The Deputy was very observant to see my horror at what was in the SOP. He is right that I have huge difficulties, from a legal perspective, as to whether this is in legal compliance with the Disability Act because, as I said in my presentation, the purpose of the Act is to determine whether a child has a diagnosis and the extent of that diagnosis. Having listened to Mr. Smyth and his colleagues, I do not know how a diagnosis can be achieved in a 90-minute meeting that is very dependent on the questionnaires Ms Comerford and other families have been provided with.

In the absence of a very serious rethink on this matter, High Court challenges are inevitable. Those costly court procedures are unnecessary and can be avoided but they will be necessary to meet the needs of these children. I cannot say what the High Court or any other court will say but it is my view that this will not stand up in court because it cannot be said to be compliance with the Disability Act. Privately, at senior levels of the HSE, there is agreement with my assessment. They know that this is inevitable and I cannot understand why they would go to court about something that everybody privately or publicly might consider to be a real issue.

I cannot comment on the issue of the legal teams who appear for the HSE. I simply do not know the nature of their relationship with the HSE other than to say that when they do come to court they regularly concede that the timeframes are not those mandated by law, which is a cruel trick to play on families. Many families have received a letter saying, "We know we have do this but you are going to be two or three years waiting because of our current capacity and workloads". Yet the Disability Act has made it very clear that the cost of those assessments is not a defence to the non-implementation of limits. That is, again, a very progressive section within the Disability Act that needs to be preserved at all costs.