Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being here this afternoon. I have a few questions and I might ask them together, if the Minister of State can take note of them and reply to them together. To follow on from Deputy Ward's point on pre-assessment, the Minister of State said it is her understanding that was brought forward for it to be streamlined. What exactly does "for it to be streamlined" mean? That is a word that is used and everyone says the process is streamlined but what does that even mean? To be honest, the comprehensive assessment is what children need and "streamlined" is a made-up word that is used for people to think something is happening but it is not happening. I would like the Minister of State to explain what she means by “streamlined”.

I have a question related to the pre-assessment, that is, the 90-minute exercise. We spoke on foot of Deputy Costello's question on the ratification of the optional protocol. It feels like that 90-minute pre-assessment exercise is a breach of the Disability Act, which leaves us further away from meeting the requirement to have the optional protocol in place in time. We want to remove obstacles for people to be able to take cases but there is a sense we have created the 90-minute assessment to stave off court proceedings rather than have a system that is streamlined.

The report also explains where the Disability Act 2005 covers assessment for health needs. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act covers assessment for special needs assessment. The report outlines how essentially, both Acts go hand in hand. However, due to the fact that different sections of the EPSEN Act were deferred because of financial constraints in 2008, the provision of a education service to a child is often neglected or not pursued. For example, where the assessment of needs identify the need for an education service for a child, the assessment officer would refer the matter either to the principal of the child’s school to practically meet the educational needs of the student concerned or for a special educational needs assessment. However, the second option does not exist since the relevant sections of the EPSEN Act have not yet commenced. This means that despite the fact that the need for additional education services are stated in this statement of assessment, the child could potentially never receive the appropriate supports because the relevant actions of the Act have not commenced. The question I have for the Minister of State in that respect is whether the Department has looked at implementing these relevant sections of the EPSEN Act to ensure children are receiving an adequate assessment of needs process, as outlined in both Acts.

Through the assessment of needs, the only gateway to access services is through a disability finding. This means if an assessment officer finds that a child does not have a disability, a liaison officer cannot provide a service statement, regardless of the child’s other identified needs. This makes the 2005 Act a diagnosis-led rather than needs-led model. The question I have for the Minister of State in that respect is whether the Department has looked at different ways of reconfiguring the current regime to adopt to a more needs-led model.

Finally, what is the cost of providing the SOP system? Would that money have been better spent in going with the funding she allocated to address the backlog? Have we redirected funding? What is the cost of the funding to do the pre-assessment? Would it have been better spent in helping the Minister of State to continue to address the current backlog with a more comprehensive model?