Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

First, I, too, take the opportunity to wish the new Minister for Education and Skills the very best in her new position. As an experienced parliamentarian - she is over 20 years in this House - she can make her mark in this area. Tonight's debate is the first opportunity she could have, and I would urge her to take it.

Although issues of banking and recapitalisation and the costs to services have been outlined, this discussion has nothing to do with the money that needs to be borrowed to support the banking system. Much as I am on the record as saying that it makes my skin crawl, and others' skin crawl, sadly, it is necessary in order to minimise the burden placed on the taxpayer and future generations. Otherwise, there would be no money available because the interest we would be paying on our overdraft would be so much that it would affect wages, services and also social supports. This has been discussed in great detail, for example, last night. There is not a pot of money that can be taken from NAMA and banking recapitalisation and spent on other areas. It is money being provided specifically by the European Central Bank to rebuild the banking system and, hopefully, although there is a risk involved, make money for the State that we can spend on the services that are needed. However, that is another debate.

I welcome this Private Members' session. In particular, I welcome the mature, balanced and co-operative approach that has been taken. There has not been any mud slinging or point scoring. I acknowledge the genuine sincerity of by Deputy Brian Hayes and his colleagues, and the motivation behind this motion.

As the House will be aware, there is a Government amendment to which the Whip system applies, and the Government amendment will be taken first. That said, this debate is not three hours of wasted time. It is three hours of very valuable time that should not be forgotten by the Minister at a quarter to nine.

The points that have been raised already, and that will be raised in the summation, and the lessons learned should be taken on board, certainly in terms of how the current review is being rolled out. Maybe there are opportunities to go further than that. The National Council for Special Education may be autonomous in its day-to-day operation, but the Minister and her Department have the power to shape policy and its implementation.

This discussion follows on from a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science. As Chairman of the committee, I facilitated the meeting but I must acknowledge the major role played by Deputies Brian Hayes and Flynn in organising it. The committee meeting looked at a range of issues involving special education, specifically the special needs assistant, SNA, review in both special and mainstream schools with contributions from the principals of several schools, the trade union IMPACT and a delegation from the National Council for Special Education, NCSE.

The NCSE did not cover itself in glory that day and praise is due to Oireachtas Members of all parties whose questioning highlighted the glaring deficits in how the SNA review is being carried out. As a Member of a Government party, I do not have difficulties with a review that aims to ensure SNA support is allocated in areas where it is most needed and where it is not being used inappropriately.

A commitment was given to the Green Party under the renewed programme for Government that the roll-out of the Education for Special Educational Needs Act 2004, EPSEN, would continue starting with more investment for additional psychologists at the National Educational Psychological Service and that any money saved from possible job cuts in SNA numbers would be ring-fenced for special needs.

I was gratified to hear from the NCSE and from the Minister tonight that the remit is not to save money but instead to focus on allocation of support and that areas where support is no longer needed or not being provided appropriately would be reallocated. However, while I fully agree with the policy, I cannot say the same for its implementation. As other Members have pointed out, no appeals process was in place from the beginning of the review. The NCSE representatives could not give a rational excuse as to why they started culling mid-stream except for a vague allusion to Government policy. The Minister did not say there was a diktat from her, or her predecessor, to the NCSE.

The Minister, however, did say she could allow a longer transitional time and ask the NCSE to examine that. I hope that means action on the ground. As Deputy Flynn stated, those children who were to have had their SNAs withdrawn will get them back for the remainder of the school year.

There are disagreements as to the criteria used in allocating a SNA to a child. Taking away a SNA from a child, however, is callous, cruel and inhumane for the child who has built up a relationship with his or her SNA, a relationship of trust, confidence and dependence. It cannot just be broken midway through a school year. Although the SNAs may not be allocated the same time each year like mainstream teachers, to withdraw them in that manner does not make sense. It is better to wait for the few weeks of the summer break. The Minister has been advised posts are not allocated at the same time each year. She has the power to resolve this matter and I hope she carries this through.

That is, of course, if the removal was warranted in the first place. I was disappointed to learn from my discussions with parents and principals that there was no appeals process at the outset. Special educational needs organiser decisions from February are now to be internally reviewed but there will still be no independent review due until 2011 at earliest. The Minister stated an independent advisory committee will be established in the autumn. I hope this proves to be a powerful committee rather than just another quango and will allow schools make appeals, including those who did not get the opportunity in the first place. I see Deputy Stanton shaking his head in disagreement but I hope it is more than a sop and will influence the process.

The principal of St. Joseph's school, Tallaght told the joint education committee:

From the outset the SENOs seemed determined to achieve large staff reductions irrespective of arguments put by school staff, me or the board of management. They failed to seek the opinions of parents, staff, the principal or the board of management. They requested documents from outside professionals only, including psychological reports, occupational therapy reports and reports from consultant doctors but no signed reports from the teachers or the principal. The review lacked openness, transparency and proper consultation.

The NCSE said the 1993 special education review committee, SERC, criteria are a baseline level and that the service it provides is above and beyond this. While I may not be fully qualified to comment on this, I must point out the SERC criteria are from 1993, published prior to health and safety legislation, child protection measures and the EPSEN Act, and need to be updated.

The review process is a waste of money. If posts are being reallocated, then sacking a SNA immediately rather than leaving them on a panel in a specified geographic area does not make sense. One principal from a special needs school informed me in an e-mail that it may acquire up to ten SNAs through the new process but will still have to get rid of eight. He described it as, "What a Carry On". What is the point in getting rid of jobs when creating more? The process needs to be examined.

In November 2008, IMPACT made a submission regarding the value for money and policy review of the SNA scheme. It made suggestions for the more efficient use of resources and spoke of the need for clarification of the role of SNAs, professional qualifications and the basis of employment which would best facilitate any redeployment of staff as required. I welcome the agreement by the NCSE to discuss these suggestions with IMPACT. I hope the council and the Department of Education and Science will learn from them.

The Minister's wording of the amendment to the motion has done an excellent job in defending the Government's commitment to special needs. She has clarified SNA resources will not be cut but instead reallocated. More importantly, her contribution reflected some small movement forward from the Department's position at the time of the education committee meeting. I hope this is not just empty talk but will lead to a tangible improvement in services on the ground. I thank Deputy Brian Hayes for tabling this motion.

See this speech in context