Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

With regard to amendment No. 3, I must point out that the primary aim of this urgent new legislation is to truncate and streamline the current section 37A process. It is generally accepted by all stakeholders that the current process is too long, and I know the Deputy is of a similar view, as is the House. On one of the two occasions the section 37A process was used, it took 18 months to conclude.

I note that this amendment is the first of a number of amendments the Deputy is proposing which seek to reintroduce existing provisions and steps from the current section 37A process into this new legislation. The Deputy's amendments aim to extend the shorter section 37A process provided for in the Bill, and would have the effect of delaying the issuing of a ministerial direction to a school. Assuming that this legislation is enacted in the coming weeks, these amendments together would have the effect of preventing the use of the new shorter section 37A process to address the immediate challenge facing us of providing places for children with special educational needs and requiring an appropriate place for the coming school year.

There is already a significant level of engagement between my Department and the National Council for Special Education, particularly in the last two years, with regard to the forward planning of special educational needs placements. A significant level of information is shared by my Department's planning and building unit with the National Council for Special Education from the geographical information system. I am therefore confident that the NCSE will have a significant level of information from my Department which can be considered before the NCSE decides to prepare and submit a report to the Minister. As this amendment goes against the primary aim of the Bill, I cannot accept it.

Regarding amendment No. 4, I understand the intention of the amendment. I assure the Deputy that it will be absolutely my intention that any future section 37A processes commence in a timely manner and well in advance of the beginning of a new school year. I know that this would be important for parents and children with special educational needs, and for the schools that might be subject to notices under section 37A. However, while understanding what the Deputy is trying to achieve in this amendment, the amendment does not allow for any flexibility in how the section 37A process could be used, and the flexibility in the process is important. There are situations which may arise where a Minister may need to issue notices in April or the month of May in advance of a new school year in September, and I do not want to preclude that being a possibility. The biggest reason for needing the flexibility relates to a situation where there may be a delay in a cohort of children being diagnosed and receiving a recommendation for a special class or special school placement or, indeed, regarding students coming from abroad and arriving in the month of April.

The amendment would suggest that for five months there would not be an opportunity for us to progress. Assuming that the legislation is enacted in the coming weeks, this amendment would have the effect of preventing the use of the new shorter section 37A process to address the immediate challenge facing us in providing places for children. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment, but I assure the Deputy that I am committed to ensuring that any section 37A process commences in good time. However, I do not believe we should restrict ourselves in the manner intended by the Deputy should an unforeseen circumstance arise where the section 37A process may be required for a small number of children or young people in a small circumstance, as it were.

As regards amendment No. 5, as mentioned previously this is another amendment which seeks to lengthen the section 37A process. This cuts across the primary aim of the Bill, which I know the Deputy supports. The amendment would require the Minister in every instance to consult with stakeholders before specifying what resources the Minister considers appropriate to provide to a school to assist the school in making additional provision for education for children with special educational needs. The amendment does not provide a defined timeline for this consultation and the details of the range of stakeholders to be consulted are not provided. I assure the Deputy that the Department and the National Council for Special Education are committed to resourcing and supporting schools to open new special classes. Under the proposed new section 37A process, after the issuing by the Minister of the initial notice schools will have two opportunities to make representations, including representation in respect of resources. The Minister will also be required to consider any representations before moving to the next step in the process. Assuming this legislation is enacted in the coming weeks, these amendments together would have the effect of preventing the use of the new shorter section 37A process, which is what we are seeking to achieve here. In fact, amendment No. 5 has the effect of extending the proposed section 37A process and, therefore, I cannot accept it.

With regard to amendment No. 6, I accept the importance of engagement with all education stakeholders and special educational needs advocacy groups on special education classes and special school places.

In fact, I was very happy that the announcement of all this was supported by at least four of the advocacy groups, who welcomed this urgent legislation and asked that it be enacted as soon as possible. Amendment No. 6, however, would require the NCSE in every instance to engage with a range of education stakeholders before preparing a report under section 37A. The NCSE and the Department have ongoing engagement with education stakeholders on the provision of additional special classes and special school places. It is envisaged that the NCSE will have engaged with schools that might be considered under any section 37A process on a number of occasions before any such process would commence and, therefore, it would not be an unexpected development for the schools involved, and wider education stakeholders, for those particular schools to be considered under a section 37A process. As outlined in this amendment, it will have the effect of extending the proposed section 37A process and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

I fully appreciate the intention of amendment No. 7, but there are a number of issues with it. I assure the Deputy that it is my intention, and that of the Department and the NCSE, to provide appropriate educational resources to schools providing additional special classes. The Department and the NCSE can only make this commitment in respect of resources under our control. It is not the function of the Department or the NCSE to provide a number of the resources highlighted in the Deputy’s amendment. These resources are under the remit of other Departments and State bodies. This amendment and other amendments proposed by the Deputy relate to the core functions and role of the NCSE and their staff, in particular, the special education needs organisers, SENOs. Most of the amendments relate to the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act. Given the pace at which this urgent legislation has been drafted, and how quickly it is now progressing, I suggest that we need more time and space to consider the issues being addressed in the Deputy’s amendments. The current review of the EPSEN Act might be an opportunity for us to consider these matters further.

I apologise to Deputy Ó Laoghaire. I thought amendment No. 7 had been moved.

See this speech in context