Dáil debates

Thursday, 13 May 2004

Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003: Report Stage (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Noel DempseyNoel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy is right. There was a long and detailed discussion on making available the services of the health board or council as soon as practicable. As a result of the exchanges on Committee Stage, it was agreed that a child should not be precluded from receiving the benefit of services merely because an appeal is pending. It is particularly important that a child should not needlessly miss out on his or her education and amendment No. 99 achieves that. It provides that the services of the health board or council must be made available as soon as practicable and that, in such a situation, the council or the health board will still be required to provide services on those aspects of the assessment or education plan that are not in dispute. That is important because it gives parents and children a certain level of service and the ability to appeal to raise the level of service while any other appeal is under way. That covers the issues raised in amendments Nos. 81, 82, 84 and 86.

Section 7(5) provides that if a dispute arises between the council and a health board as to which can provide a service more effectively, it must be referred within three months to the appeals board. Deputies suggested reducing this timescale to a month or six weeks. At all times I had to be realistic in setting timeframes. In this case, the timeframe can be reduced to two months but I would not want to make the period any shorter. In cases of this nature, when there is a dispute, there can be many technical issues to be examined and the two month period is reasonable. A month or six weeks has been suggested for a time limit for the appeals board to determine or issue a direction in a dispute of this nature. Again I suggest two months is more realistic to ensure the appeals board has an opportunity to hear both sides and made a reasoned decision. Amendment No. 92 will achieve that.

I agree with the principle behind amendment No. 95. The term "may" in that situation could suggest that the appeals board could decide not to make a determination. The word "will", as suggested by Deputy Enright, might not correct that either. Perhaps, with the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I might offer an oral amendment in the following terms:

In page 12, subsection 5, line 16, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.