Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their general support for the provision.

Deputy Thomas Byrne is concerned that children are not at the centre of this provision. It is important to see it in the context of the overall Bill which provides explicitly for the banning of discrimination in school admissions policies based on a child having special needs. It also provides that the NCSE can compel a school to take an individual child. In the amendment we are seeking to add an additional power that the NCSE can compel a school to open a special unit. The child is at the heart of this provision.

I take the point about complexity, but to be fair to the process, the first two elements, effectively, are the NCSE exchanging with the Department to establish that it believes there is a need, checking what the Department has planned to build and confirming that it is building it. The first two stages of the process are entirely internal to the Department. It is at that stage that a notice is served. One can move very quickly to serving a notice where there is a need. I accept that following these representations may lead to the possibility of arbitration, which may hold up the process. We are, however, very optimistic that where a school is agreeable, we will considerably beat the seven-month fear of the Deputy. We hope that in virtually every case the school will be agreeable and that it will be a reserved power, rather than a power we will continually have to exercise. In a short space of time we have gone from a figure of 548 to 1,304. Schools are responding. We have made the arrangements favourable to them by the provision of investment and support. It provides for additional teachers and SNAs and it is also recognised in other dimensions of support for the school. It is not true to say we will need to compel a lot of recalcitrant schools to respect children's rights, but there may be cases and we need to be able to deal with them.

Reference was made to putting funding in jeopardy. It would, however, be the other children in the school who would carry the cost if one was to start cutting budgets because schools were not delivering in this area to the satisfaction of some. Compulsion, direction and our making financial provision are all important elements because we are not asking schools to do it without their consent. I thank Deputies for their support.

I confirm the Department's policy on the allocation of SNAs, which is to ensure every child who has been assessed as having a need for an SNA will receive that support. This policy has been in place since before my time as Minister and it has always been forthcoming. The NCSE decides independently. Admittedly, the decision is made on the basis of diagnostic tests. That is the system in place. There are diagnostic tests to establish need, but the decision also takes into account behavioural problems. We have recently changed the resource teaching model which does not require all of the submissions on diagnostic tests. We are profiling schools to make it easier and it is working. Schools report that it is a better system. The domiciliary care and SNA need tests are not the same. The domiciliary care test is about the child's financial needs such as for the domiciliary care allowance, while the SNA need test is about the child being able to participate in and complete school. The tests are different.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion spoke about some elements of the amendment being cumbersome. If there is a willingness, it will not prove to be cumbersome. Should it be required, we have protections to deal with it.

While I take Deputy Barry's point about the larger provision at primary level than at secondary level, the latter is growing faster than the former, which indicates our success in retaining people in the education system. It was heartening to see Ireland's rate of retention to completion of second level improve, with the drop-out rate halving in the past ten years. The policy is succeeding in getting people to complete second level. I expect to see even faster growth in autism spectrum disorder, ASD, units at that level. Those units are determined by the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, based on its own assessment of need.

Deputy Shortall was right to state that property rights should not block reasonable provision for disability services. Given that we are making provision for property that is not in State ownership to be allocated to a certain unit, we must be careful to show that what we are doing is properly grounded in the public interest and so on. We are taking care to ensure that there is no potential for a challenge to what we are doing.

Regarding Deputy Catherine Martin's point, need decides an allocation. We are expanding, as the figures show. We have had a 40% increase in special needs assistants, SNAs, and a similar percentage increase in resource teachers in the past six or seven years. There is a large allocation. This is not restricted by a budgetary factor. That is remarkable, given the period we have been through. The allocation is made where it is established that a need exists, and that will continue to be the case. I anticipate that we will continue building capacity. The new resource teaching model is proving its worth because it is giving greater flexibility. The Deputy will have seen that we recently announced a pilot in community healthcare organisation, CHO, area 7. Under it, 75 preschools and 75 schools will have speech and language and occupational therapists provided within the school network. This will ensure that we not only have the appropriate supports, including SNAs and resource teachers, but that we also integrate them into the school. That is the right direction of travel.

Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the Clonkeen issue, but I cannot comment on it. I have received an application to dismiss the board. I have a statutory role in this matter, which I will exercise with the care required under the legislation. I welcome the Deputy's support for this approach.

While I see the Deputies' point about the possibility of this proving cumbersome, that will not be the case where there is an acknowledgement by the school, which I hope will be the rule rather than the exception. On the face of it, the amendment's other elements seem cumbersome, but they are designed to ensure that we meet the legal requirement to make orders robust where they are issued against schools' wishes. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that a direction issued to a school, even where the school resists it, is not overturned should it be challenged.

See this speech in context