Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and I also welcome the fact that the Minister of State is here this evening. This Oireachtas joint committee was set up specifically to look at autism. I welcome its Chair, Senator Carrigy, to the House and I welcome the committee's report. Senator Carrigy pointed out that the committee has had ten public meetings thus far and the summer programme has arisen consistently as a major issue and a source of frustration for autistic people and their families in many of these meetings. That is also our experience as Deputies and Senators. Senator Carrigy spoke about the powerful contributions at those meetings and highlighted the urgent need for action to ensure that no autistic child is left without a place in their local area in the summer programme of 2023. The summer programme, formerly known as July provision, came into being because a family had to take the State to court to get it established. It is important to remember that. This is all contained in the foreword to the committee's report.

The committee felt it was very important that there would be a debate here in this Chamber and requested that the issues raised in the report and its recommendations be the subject of a debate and action in both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is what is happening now but the background to this is that those on the ground, struggling to cope with various levels of ability among their children, had to put pressure on the committee to ensure that this would happen. We have to keep that in mind all of the time when we stand up here and read from reports.

What were the key issues raised? For the record, one of the key issues was regression over the summer holiday period. It is extremely important to point out that people with serious disabilities need ongoing attendance at different types of school venues and when summer provision fails them, there is regression. This is very upsetting. Another key issue is the strain on carers and families caused by delays in schools confirming participation in the summer programme. The expansion of the cohort to whom the summer programme is available also arose as an issue which especially affected those pupils most in need. The expansion of the programme has meant that those most in need are not having their needs met. It is very important that we say this and look at it more closely. Staffing for the summer programme has been a continuous problem. There is a need for incentives for teachers and special needs assistants, SNAs, to participate in the programme. Other issues include the time allocation for schools to arrange the summer programme, the refusal of some schools to provide the programme, funding and the allocation of same.

All of these issues were teased out at the committee. I want to put some meat on that from a human perspective. As has been outlined, the committee heard powerful contributions from witnesses representing various groups and individuals. I will quote Ms Miriam Jennings, one such witness:

The first thing I would say is that I think everybody here is a very reluctant advocate. We certainly would not choose to be here but we come here because this is our lived experience.

She also stated "We believe, however, that our children's need for a school-based summer programme was not safeguarded." That is very important because the programme was set up for a particular group of people with particular disabilities but when it was expanded, that group lost out. It is important that we highlight that and confirm that it will not happen this year. Ms Jennings argued that no plan was put in place to ensure that complex-needs children, for whom the scheme was set up, would access it and gave some figures to illustrate her point.

Witnesses also expressed their views on home-based tuition, to which the Minister of State referred. While that may well be positive for some families, I want to refer to what some witnesses said in relation to it. They expressed their views on the provision of home-based tuition rather than an in-school summer programme and representatives were united in arguing that the home-based programme falls considerably short of what is required by children with complex needs. At the same meeting, Ms Sarah Murphy, representing special needs schools and classes, stated:

The Department states all the time that one can get a home-based tutor if one cannot get the July provision in school. However, there is so much about being in school, such as getting on the bus and all the minutiae of life that is important to people, both children and adults, who do not really understand because they do not have the intellectual capacity. We build this life for them that they can enjoy and that they can progress in but we have to do it within the boundaries of what works, so introducing lots of new things like a tutor, for example, for home-based provision does not work ...

The point is that home-schooling is trotted out but it is not the answer for a substantial number of children with special needs.

The conclusions of the committee's brief interim report are interesting. This is an interim report and the committee will continue its work, as I understand it. The committee decided to publish an interim report because of the concerns of all its members that everything be put in place for this summer so that we learn from what has been going on over the last few years. I appreciate the efforts of the Department and the Minister of State in relation to reviews but they have not got to grips with the problem that the programme was extended beyond the remit of those for whom it was developed, based on a legal case. I am delighted that the programme can be extended for other deserving cases but we must not lose sight of its necessity for children with complex needs.

The conclusion of the report reads thus:

This brief interim report provides an outline of the rationale behind the action taken by the Joint Committee on Autism in adopting this resolution. The basis for this short report is the urgency of the situation in respect of the Summer Programme 2023, which is referenced in the opening lines...this report draws on the work of the Joint Committee on Autism and the contributions of the witnesses to its work. Moreover, it identifies the origins of the Summer Programme and its essential importance for autistic children and their families.

The committee makes eight recommendations and I ask the Minister to outline in her concluding remarks how many of them have been taken on board by the Department. I did not have her opening statement in front of me when she spoke earlier. Had I obtained a copy, I might have been in a better position to identify which ones have been taken on board. She spoke about a liaison officer and that would seem to represent progress on one of the recommendations. In the time left to me, it is important that I put the recommendations on record.

The first is that, "notwithstanding the positive aspects of expanding the cohort of pupils that may participate in the Summer Programme, priority access to a school-based Summer Programme be given to those with conditions which place them most at risk of regression". The second is that "the Department of Education establishes a dedicated liaison team to provide information and assistance to school boards of management". The committee also recommends that the Department "liaises closely with the boards of management...establishes a protocol whereby the resources of schools can be pooled together...engages with the relevant teachers' and special needs assistants' trade unions to identify and resolve any pay anomalies and any delays in making payment to staff". That seems a most basic requirement - the necessity that staff would get paid on time. The committee also recommends that the Department "expands the range of professions that may participate in the Summer Programme" to include child psychologists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, early childcare workers and very importantly, third level students in the final two years of programmes in education, psychology, and therapies such as occupational and speech and language therapy, nursing and medicine.

7 o’clock

The final two recommendations state:

That the Department of Education engages with the relevant regulators for the above-named professions and advise them of the opportunities to participate in the Summer Programme.

That the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Garda National Vetting Bureau, resolve any difficulties with vetted staff working in different schools to provide the Summer Programme, while prioritising the safety of children and vulnerable persons.

This is the time to get it right. This is an interim report pending a fuller one. It has clear recommendations, conclusions and identification of the issues on the back of families who are struggling heroically to raise children with a complex range of disabilities as normally as possible. We have the money and the expertise but we also have families who are appealing to us to do it right this year.

See this speech in context