Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 395 together.

The advisory committee for the deaf and hard of hearing was established in December 2001. The committee held 38 meetings over a three-year period as well as a number of other meetings at subcommittee stage. However, from an early stage in the committee's deliberations it became apparent that there were entrenched, divergent views among representatives of deaf and hearing persons and their families on approaches to the teaching of the deaf and hard of hearing and that there was little willingness to reach consensus.

One group, which came from an oralist tradition, favoured a focus on teaching deaf and hard of hearing children to speak and to understand spoken language. The emphasis in the oralist approach is on the use of residual hearing and has been assisted by advances in audiology and technology. Another group strongly advocated sign language as the appropriate and exclusive means of communication. The opposing viewpoints of these groups made it very difficult for the committee to reach decisions. In some cases, decisions arrived at sub-committee stage were challenged at plenary level by members who were involved in the decisions of the sub-committee.

While various chapters of the committee's report were drafted, including chapters on early intervention, primary education, post-primary education, visiting teacher service and communication issues, no consensus was reached on any of these due to the divergent views of members of the committee. To progress matters, and as two previous deadlines which had been set for finalisation had not been met, my predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey, met the committee in June 2004. At that meeting, he stressed that its report should be completed by October 2004. This did not materialise. In the circumstances and following consultations between my officials and the chairperson of the committee, I formed the view that there was no prospect of the advisory committee reaching an agreed position in the foreseeable future. Given this position, I recently wrote to the chairperson of the committee and informed her of my decision to disband it. I have no plans to change that decision.

In disbanding the committee, however, I requested that all of the material produced by it to date be sent to my Department and this has been done. I now intend to discuss the very important issue of deaf education with the National Council for Special Education with a view to carrying out research initially and devising policy on issues relating to deaf and hard of hearing pupils.

I am disappointed that it was not possible for the committee to complete its work but the reality was that, over three years after its establishment, there was no prospect of its doing so. Rather than continue down the cul-de-sac that the committee's work had become, I have decided that a different approach is required and this approach includes involving the National Council for Special Education, which has a remit to advise my Department on policy matters.

I am confident the National Council for Special Education, which has a research function and part of whose remit is to advise my Department on policy matters, will be in a position, after undertaking appropriate research and analysis of this matter, to advise my Department on policy and other issues relating to the education of deaf and hard of hearing pupils.

See this speech in context