Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this legislation and congratulate those who brought it forward. The Labour Party is happy to support the Bill. I have a history with IEPs. In my former life as a school teacher, we used to be delighted to get to the point of an IEP because it was a bit of a struggle to get resources. I taught in a particularly disadvantaged part of Dublin. We used to be forced to get psychological assessments because we could not get them from NEPS. The level of need in our school was such that the numbers we had did not justify the number of psychological assessments we needed. The parents did not have the resources to get private assessments. We had to ask the Society of St. Vincent De Paul and Citibank to pay for them. We always had the sense that those who had resources within their own families or communities seemed to get more resources from the State and from NEPS than, perhaps, our school did. That is a while ago now. The matter has been largely addressed, but that was the type of desperation that we faced. Our only way of getting a child assessed at that time was to go to the Society of St. Vincent De Paul. Now, this controversy is coming back again. The controversy is not new. People are going to educational psychologists and the bona fides of those psychologists are being called into question. The reality is that when you do not feel you can get the service from NEPS, you are going to try to get your child assessed elsewhere. A reflection on that on the part of the Government would be welcome.

When there is an IEP, it is only reasonable, as the proposers of the legislation are saying, that it will have some status and go somewhere. There must be a sense that it will feed back into an overall inspection system that will oversee these very important plans. If it does not happen at a particular stage in a child's life, the issues and the educational challenges that the child has will be compounded. That is why IEPs are so important. You are up against the clock. If the issues are going to be compounded over a period of years and if the IEP is not followed to the letter or if there is not some kind of oversight of it, the child will be disadvantaged further. I appreciate that the EPSEN Act is being reviewed. That is to be welcomed. One of the great disappointments of the past 20 years is that large elements of the EPSEN Act were not commenced, probably because of issues relating to resources. At least the Government is having the discussion and engaging in a review, which, I understand, has been extended to 24 March. That is important.

While the Minister of State is here, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the issue relating to school places is rumbling on. I have been approached by any amount of constituents who are fearful of not having school places for their children next September. I would like to get a sense from the Minister of State as to how the legislation she brought forward in this House last year is bringing into effect the availability of class places for children with additional needs, particularly those with autism. The level of need in Dublin 5 and Dublin 13 in my constituency, the lack of availability of assessments and interventions and the constant tale of waiting times of 12 months, 24 months, 36 months are connected. I know this matter does not strictly come within the Minister of State's remit, but it is connected. Far too often, these parents find themselves in between the various different Departments, the HSE and the Department of Education. Their children are falling through the cracks. As the Minister of State and I know, and as people in his House have said thousands of times, parents who feel as if they have to fight the State in order to get the most basic of provision for their children are exhausted. They see the clock running out on the potential for meaningful interventions to take place because their children are already five, six or seven years of age. Some of them are actually ageing out as they are waiting for the interventions that they need.

I also want to raise the controversy relating to 58 school building projects. I assume that many of the schools involved are depending on those projects to proceed in order to facilitate new units on their campuses. We still do not have the list of the schools affected, and the patron bodies do not have it. They received individual letters, but we still do not have a list of the schools. I can only assume that those building projects are going to affect children with additional needs, and also the availability of special educational units within the schools in question. Some reflection and clarity are needed. We are now facing into a situation of uncertainty going into the St. Patrick's Day break next week. It will not be too long before we are heading into Easter. Having got these communications from the Department schools are at the end of their tethers and are wondering where they stand. It is not fully the Department of Education's responsibility. The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform must also step up. It is about the level of uncertainty again, which is being found within the entire system and this particular area. It is not really the way that we want to run things.

Returning to the Bill, I appreciate where the proposers are coming from and I happily accept what they are saying. However, Deputy Joan Collins is right. I refer to the 12-month issue that is a constant in the way that we do business here. It feels as if when good legislation is brought forward by an Opposition Deputy, the way to kill it is to give it 12 months. The first or second time it happened I felt that it was done maybe in good faith and we could work with Government on it. However, it is coming to the point where I do not actually think it is being done in good faith. It is done in such way that a Bill cannot be voted down, and the Government can hide behind this elongated process of the 12-month review until the next Stage. I hope that it is not the case in this instance, because, in fairness, there is a review of the EPSEN Act and the Minister of State wants to feed into that. I accept that. However, it has become a well-known tactic within these Houses. If it is a motion, the Government does not oppose it and it just becomes meaningless. If it is legislation, there is a review of it in 12 months' time, which takes the sting out of the matter because the Government is not necessarily opposing it or voting it down. It has the same effect of it not actually making any difference. It does lead to Opposition Members wondering what the point is of bringing forward well-meaning, well-crafted and constitutionally-robust legislation that will make a difference in people's lives. The Government's response is that it will come back to the matter in 12 months' time. My experience with the Department - not with the Minister of State or the Minister - when I brought forward the Education (Admissions to School) Bill 2020 is that I was told to wait 12 months. The 12 months made no difference. It was actually a tactic.

In light of the overall importance of this issue, of the 58 school building projects that are absolutely going to affect matters when it comes to additional needs and of the fact that school places are still a problem, I am of the view that we are we are going to return to it again and again. The Government wants 12 months. I hope that is being done for the right reasons.

The suspicion levels on this side of the House have grown about this being a Government tactic to delay things and not accept the well-meaning intentions of Deputies across the House.

See this speech in context