Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive opening statement. However, as is often the case with opening statements from Ministers, there is no context given. I welcome her commitment, her bona fides and the positive steps she has outlined, but to understand that one must put it in context. The Minister of State pointed out that it is their right under the Constitution, and nobody in the Chamber disagrees with that, but I call that weak in the extreme. There is an obligation under Article 42 of the Constitution, as the Minister of State knows better then me, regarding primary school education. It does not depend on ability. Unfortunately, in the O'Donoghue case back in the 1990s, the Government sought to argue that some children were not educable. We have moved a long way from that, but that is the background here. I will return to that in respect of the July provision.

We are talking about rights here. The context of this discussion is not proactive. It is not because the National Council for Special Education came forward and said it has a crisis and will have no places in September; it is a result of committed organisations coming forward and the media telling us that there is a problem. We had a response to that through tweets on Twitter, which is not an acceptable way to convey policy. That is my view. I do not believe it is the right way to do things. Policy should be conveyed on the floor of the Dáil. There were tweets going out about this saying that the legislation might be changed, that the legislation in place might be implemented and that we might set up special education centres. Quite predictably, it caused an outcry. Gareth Noble, a solicitor who specialises in children's rights, pointed out that education is not a luxury or privilege, but a constitutionally enshrined privilege. We know that. Áine Hyland, Emeritus Professor of Education at University College Cork, UCC, says the shortage of special places at second level, in particular, is entirely predictable. AsIAm pointed out its shock at the proposal regarding special education centres. More particularly, Adam Harris pointed out that a fundamental change in culture is needed, saying that a deeply-rooted, charity-based approach is the problem. It is charity-based, not Constitution-based.

I would have a great deal more faith in the system if this was a proactive discussion brought forward by the Government in an open and accountable way to admit that there is a major problem, notwithstanding the amount of money at more than €2 billion, which I welcome, and the eligibility for the July programme, to which I will return. At the very least I would expect that when a speech like that is made, it is placed in context so we understand it. Ultimately, we are talking about a finite number of children. Overall, there are almost 12,700 pupils - a finite number, and approximately 1% of the overall population - enrolled in special classes in mainstream primary and post-primary schools. The Minister of State also told us there are now 129 special schools with 8,000 pupils, which is 0.8% of the total population. We have finite numbers and finite challenges. I do not like to call it a problem. All our effort should be going to help those with disability in the first instance, then national schools and, last of all, third level, notwithstanding that I fully recognise the important role of third level education. However, I would put it in at the other end.

We have this finite number and this finite challenge, yet this is a reactive discussion where the Minister of State is obliged to come here and say she did this, this and this. All the while there are 250 to 270 children with no place in the autumn. That is completely unacceptable if we are taking our obligations under the Constitution seriously. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has appointed a new CEO, but there is no analysis of what led to this problem. What led to her appointing a new CEO? What analysis has been done, without blaming anybody? What happened that the person could not predict and bring it to the Minister of State's attention so we could have a proactive discussion and examine it? That has not happened.

Then the changes proposed were ad hocand positively dangerous and unacceptable, particularly in the context of saying there will be special education centres and so forth. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission responded with immediate concerns about the plan. It pointed out that young people have a right to education and for that education to be an appropriate education which meets their needs under Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. Imagine having to say this. We signed up to the convention and finally ratified it in 2018. We have not signed up to the protocol yet. Various organisations on the ground have had to come forward and point out that they are truly shocked. Adam Harris of AsIAm is shocked by the plan, which will mean the segregation of autistic children from their peers. He estimates there are at least 267 children across the country who have been unable to find a suitable place for September. When I looked at the Minister of State's speech, and when it is near the end of a debate there is a chance to read the speech, I said to the staff who are working with me: "This is such a positive contribution, why is there a problem?" There is more than €2 billion available, so what is going on here? Clearly, what we are saying to the 267 children is that we have done brilliantly for everybody else and that their time will come at some stage in the future.

I could read out what is the actual effect on somebody whose time is to come in the future, but it is too upsetting to read out what somebody writes to Deputies, telling them about their child who is doubly incontinent, has hearing and speech difficulties and who is absolutely reliant on education and the July provision, or the summer provision as it is now called. I do not wish to do it. That is the level Deputies are at in our offices, and then we match that with the Minister of State's lovely speech about all the positive things. One asks if one will be negative again today. What is the problem here? I am of the view that the problem lies in a lack of openness and accountability regarding the procedure that is there, what happened, how we can change it and how we can improve it.

I will examine summer provision in my last two and a half minutes. I thank the Minister of State for giving me the review. She may recall that I raised this as a Topical Issue because parents are at their wits' end. Again, summer provision, which was previously the July provision, was consequent on the High Court case of O'Donoghue v. the Department of Education in the 1990s. There were minor changes in 2001. It took up to 2001. I was not able to establish precisely when the case started but it was throughout the 1990s. That family was put to the pin of their collar and finally a limited July provision was introduced specifically in respect of the children with special needs who are utterly dependent on such provision. I raised this as a Topical Issue matter and I have received the review.

The Minister might clarify if the comprehensive review that was to be done in 2019 is still under way or if it metamorphosed into this review, the inspectorate report, which is anything but analytical? It talks about "the majority of parents" and "some parents" and states that the July provision is "very good". There is no analysis whatsoever of the significant number of families who cannot avail of the July provision because the vast amount of schools are not participating. I will not embarrass a school in Galway, which is a special school, that is not doing the July provision. I have a letter from a woman at her wits' end. The school is renting the gym and other facilities for the summer because, according to it, the school needs money. It is clear that it is not being funded enough for the July provision.

In my last minute, I urge the Minister of State to have a complete, comprehensive, factual analysis of the summer provision. I welcome that it changed in the sense of widening out the eligibility, however, to my knowledge, that is to the detriment of the very children and families it was set up to support. The numbers are tiny. I do not have the time to go into them. I welcome the changes the Minister of State made in regard to special needs teachers and the advantages for them if they take part, but there is a far more fundamental problem, that this is voluntary and only a tiny percentage of those with special needs can avail of it and when they do, they only get a week or two. There is absolutely no clarification on home provision. It is being put in as a saviour, but it is not suitable at all. People are resorting to respite services, which are not there, to get a break. They have begged the special school in Galway. The parents said they would run it themselves in order to get a break.

I welcome the discussion. I hope that at some stage we would have a proactive discussion in which we analyse the problem, and the Minister of State would come back and tell us the solutions within a very specific period and not tell us that at some stage in the future this piece of an Act will finally be implemented or another Act will be changed. There is a constitutional obligation on the Minister of State and the Government to provide education.

See this speech in context