Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

As this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, I am restricted in what I can say about it. The Government recognises that parents of all children with special needs make great sacrifices and I am determined to ensure that all children get the support they need to reach their full potential.

There is no doubt that, over decades, the record of the State in providing for children with special needs was very poor and that we are still playing catch up. Significant advances have been made in recent years, improving the lives of children with special needs and their families. There are now in the region of 17,000 adults in our mainstream schools working solely with children with special needs, compared to just a fraction of this a few years back.

The procedures for accessing extra support have also been improved with the establishment of the National Council for Special Education. Parents and teachers now have local special educational needs organisers on the ground to work with them and help them to get the appropriate support for their children. This year €900 million will be invested in special education, an increase of 40% or €260 million on the 2006 amount. Further improvements in services are on the way, with the roll-out of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 and the implementation of other commitments in the new programme for Government.

Regarding specific provision for children with autism, the Government believes that, as each child with autism is unique, children should have access to a range of different approaches to meet their individual needs. This view is informed by advice received from international experts on autism, NEPS and the inspectorate. An analysis of research, including the report of the Irish task force on autism, supports this approach, while autism societies in other countries also caution against relying on just one method. By enabling children in special classes to have access to a range of methods, including ABA, the Government is doing what we are advised is in the best interests of such children.

The Department has supported the use of ABA for many years and training is provided for teachers. However, based on research, advice and best practice, the Department does not accept that it should be the only method used. While ABA helps to improve behaviour, other methods, such as TEACCH and PECS are just as important in developing children's communication and speech skills. It is important that children have access to a range of methods so that their broader needs can be met.

Hundreds of children with autism are integrated into mainstream schools and hundreds more are in autism-specific classes. More than 275 autism-specific classes have now been approved around the country, while more are being set up all the time. A testament to the scale of progress being made in this area is the fact that over 100 of these classes have been established in the past year alone. There are a maximum of six children in each special class with a teacher and at least two special needs assistants. Extra assistants are provided where the children need them and a child can have his or her own special needs assistant if needed.

Children in special classes have the benefit of fully-qualified teachers who are trained in educating and developing children generally and who have access to additional training in autism-specific approaches, including ABA. The level of such training available to teachers has improved dramatically in recent years and is a major priority for the Government. Children in special classes also have the option, where possible and appropriate, of full or partial integration into mainstream classes and of interaction with other pupils.

The issue of contention in the case referred to by the Deputies was whether my Department's special class model is appropriate or whether ABA should be the only method used in some settings. Mr. Justice Peart, having listened to extensive expert evidence from both sides, decided that the special class model was indeed appropriate. In his judgment on the costs issue yesterday, the judge drew attention to the fact that the State was not seeking to recover its own very substantial costs. Justice Peart decided that the "fair and just" thing was not to make any order for costs, leaving each side to meet its own costs. It should be noted that counsel for the family had previously indicated to the court that the burden of the costs would not bear upon the family and I hope that it holds true.

See this speech in context