Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

According to census 2016, the level of education completed by disabled people was substantially lower than that of non-disabled people. It reports that 13.7% of disabled persons aged 15 to 50 have completed no higher than primary-level education compared with 4.2% of the general population. As we can see from this statistic, many barriers to inclusivity remain within the education system for persons with disabilities. Children with additional educational needs must be assisted to enable them to progress through and leave school with the skills necessary to participate in an inclusive way in the social and economic activities of society and live independent and fulfilled lives.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act was passed in 2004 with the aim of ensuring that children with additional educational needs could be educated in an inclusive setting and that all children would have the right to be educated in a mainstream school unless it would not be in the best interest of the child or the effective of provision of education for other children in mainstream education. Unfortunately, almost 19 years after the Act was passed, several of the main sections of the Act that would have benefited children with additional educational needs have yet to be commenced.

One such section that has not been commenced is the provision of individual education plans, IEPs. An IEP is considered best practice internationally. Along with appropriate assessments and supports, IEPs are crucial in realising meaningful inclusion of children with additional education needs in school. An IEP is a written document prepared for a named student that specifies the learning goals that are to be achieved by the student over a set period as well as the teaching strategies and resources and supports necessary to achieve those goals. This should be prepared by the school in consultation with the student, if possible, and with the parents and other stakeholders such as the therapist the student may be attending.

As a consequence of this and other sections of the Act not being implemented, children's rights are at the whim of policymakers, changes in Government, funding priorities and other factors. Parents of children can often find themselves lost in the system with little leverage and limited, if any, redress when the needs of their children are not met. This stands in direct contradiction of Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, which the Government signed up to in 2018, within which it states that "States Parties shall ensure that ... persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability." The level of inclusion outlined in Article 24 of the UNCRPD cannot even begin to be reached if the basic structures and execution for IEPs is not available as standard in schools. While it is currently the case that many teachers prepare IEPs for their students, and the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, has guidelines in place on how to prepare a plan, this is not compulsory, and they are not inspected. The quality of such plans varies significantly, therefore, and many schools do not provide IEPs at all.

The ineffectiveness of the current model of special educational needs, SEN, provision and the lack of a standard individual assessment plan and supports for children with additional educational needs in school is also sustaining the lack of mainstream placement as a first option. This compounds the situation and results in parents and children having to travel significantly without transport supports, dependence on reduced timetabling, exclusion and home tuition, over-concentration of pupils with disabilities in schools designated as disadvantaged, an incoherent approach to reasonable accommodation in examinations and the absence of a transition approach where children are offered mainstream primary class but none in post-primary.

Children with special educational needs who are segregated throughout primary and post-primary education have no meaningful access to the local school and continue on a segregated path to day services with a lack of further education and employment opportunities. This leads to a lack of quality-of-life outcome for these children.

In his recent report of the lack of availability of school places, the Ombudsman for Children stated: "All decisions made and actions taken from this time forth should be about building a strong, inclusive education system which is fully supportive of all our children equally." The steps we take now have to build toward that vision.

This Bill, which I introduced in 2021 along with my party colleagues, Deputies Guirke and Ó Laoghaire, concentrates on individual education plans and seeks to amend the Education Act 1998 to grant additional functions to the inspectorate to examine and report to the Minister for Education on the prevalence and standard of IEPs for children with special educational needs on an annual basis. The non-implementation of IEPs has severely impacted disabled people as evidenced in research undertaken by AHEAD into the transition of blind and visually impaired students to third-level education. This research identified the lack of IEP provision as the most significant challenge to ensuring appropriate access to supports and resources for students at post-primary level. This research affirms what is identified in census 2016, which is that only 37% of disabled people aged 15 to 50 were educated to third level compared with 53.4% of non-disabled people.

The EPSEN Act came into law in July 2004. With this signing into law came great hope for children with additional education needs and their families. It contained many useful provisions, but the reality is that in 2023, we are still waiting for the Act to be fully implemented. For years now, advocacy groups have been calling for a review of the Act, which enshrines certain educational protections for children with additional education needs into law. The review is under way and this, ultimately, must ensure that the Act is fit for purpose, aligns with education and disability policy development since the Act was first introduced in 2004. This should have been conducted, in my opinion and that of many disabled persons organisations, DPOs, in conjunction with a review of the Disability Act 2005 to also bring it into line with policy development since it was enacted while safeguarding the rights enshrined within it to an assessment of need. However, we have no idea how long this review will take. In the meantime, it is essential that we put procedures in place that will assist disabled people in their journey through the education system and enable them to progress with the skills necessary to participate in an inclusive way in the social and economic activities of society and live independent and fulfilled lives. With that in mind, I urge the Minister of State to support the passage of the Bill today.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Tully for bringing forward this Bill. The EPSEN Act was passed in 2004 to ensure that children with additional education needs could be educated in an inclusive setting, and that all children would have the right to be educated in a mainstream school unless it would not be the best interest of the child or the effective provision of education for other children in mainstream education.

Under the Act, each child assessed with a special educational need should have an individual education plan. An IEP is a plan to support a child's learning and development. The IEP is led by the child's strengths and learning needs and is developed in collaboration with them, their parents, teachers, SNAs and any other professionals who may be involved such as psychologists or speech and language therapists.

While the approach to individual education plans, IEPs, differs across counties and across schools, the core process in developing a plan that is monitored and regularly reviewed in consultation with all of those relevant in the child's life remain the same. It is a written document prepared for a named student, and it specifies the learning goals that are to be achieved by the student over a set period of time as well as the teaching strategies, resources and supports necessary to achieve those goals. This should be prepared by the school in consultation with the student, if possible.

Almost 20 years later the individual education plan provision was one of a number of parts within the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, EPSEN, that has never been implemented, and there is no date for the implementation of this part of the Act. While many teachers prepare individual educational plans, IEPs, for their students, it is not compulsory and not inspected. The quality of such plans vary significantly and many schools do not provide them at all.

The purpose of the Bill is to grant additional functions to the inspectorate to examine and report annually to the Minister for Education on the prevalence and standard of individual educational plans for children with special education needs. Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the Government signed up to in 2018, warns that people with disabilities should not be excluded from the mainstream education system on the basis of disability. Research by AHEAD into the transition of blind and visually impaired students to third level education identified the lack of IEP provision as the most significant challenge to ensuring appropriate access to supports and resources for students at post-primary level. Census 2016 found that the level of education completed by people with disabilities was substantially lower than the general public. We ask all parties to support this Bill and not do as they are talking of doing, which is to kick it down the road for a year.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "Dáil Éireann resolves that the Education (Inspection of Individual Education Plans for Children with Special Needs) Bill 2022 be deemed to be read a second time this day twelve months, to allow for the expansion of the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) and the attendant services provided by the NCSE, as well as the completion of the review of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004.".

I thank Deputies Tully and Guirke for raising issues relating to the prevalence and quality assurance of individual education plans for students with special education needs in primary and post-primary schools. It is an important issue that warrants detailed consideration, not just in this forum but also in the wider education sphere and with the full range of education stakeholders. For that reason, and for others on which I will provide detail presently, I am seeking a timed amendment of 12 months to this Bill to facilitate the progression of a number of significant developments in special education that are relevant to how schools and teachers prepare and review the effectiveness of plans for individual students.

Deputies will be aware that the aim of the Government is to ensure every child with additional needs receives an appropriate education based on his or her needs. My Department is committed to delivering an education system of the highest quality in which every child and young person feels valued and is actively supported and nurtured to reach his or her full potential. Special education is a priority area for investment for this Government. This year we will expend about 27% of the Department's budget on special education.

I recognise the critical importance of effective planning for all students, but especially for those with special educational needs. Effective planning on the part of teachers will ensure the right supports are delivered at the right time for students in schools. Effective planning is a collaborative effort that involves class and subject teachers as well as special education teachers. Critically, effective planning practices in schools will place the student at the centre of deliberations and will offer an opportunity to them and to their parents to be active participants in the planning process.

From my personal engagement with schools, I know they value the voices of students and parents. I am supportive of measures designed to ensure school practices in that regard are optimal. I am cognisant of the need to ensure data and information relating to students in schools can be used, as appropriate, to inform policy development in special education and in education more broadly.

On the inspectorate, the Private Member's Bill before us proposes to amend the Education Act to grant additional functions to my Department's inspectorate. These additional functions include examining and reporting to the Minister on the prevalence and standard of individual educational plans for children with special educational needs. The Bill envisages that the inspectorate would undertake quality assurance of individual education plans for many thousands of students. Among its key responsibilities, the Department's inspectorate works to provide assurances of quality of schools in the evaluation processes. In that regard, the special focus is on whole-school evaluation processes and on operational planning. It is not intended to focus on the work of the individual teacher or on the progress the individual student is making in his or her learning. It should be noted that many inspection models, including those focused specifically on the quality of the provision for children with special educational needs, involve reviews of plans for students and the manner by which schools seek to implement measures aimed at addressing identified needs. For example, this involves inquiring into whether the school is gathering appropriate data on the student and whether teachers are selecting appropriate interventions to meet the identified needs of the student. During school inspections, inspectors also evaluate the extent to which plans inform the manner in which teachers seek to address identified students needs.

As well as an inspection function, the inspectorate works to support best practice in schools by providing advice and guidance to school management and teachers in respect of whole-school planning and planning for individual students. Schools also have the option of requesting support from the inspectorate on specific areas of their practices, including planning. It is important to note, therefore, that the inspectorate conducts comprehensive programmes of inspections of special education at primary and post-primary levels, and an analysis of inspection findings shows that, generally, the quality of planning for individual students is good.

Schools are being supported to adopt and utilise a robust self-evaluation process to review the quality of provision for students. The day-to-day responsibility for this work lies with the school principal who reports on this to the board of management. Ultimately, the boards of management are responsible for ensuring teachers avail of the necessary training, supports and resources to help them prepare quality plans for students.

The Deputies may also be aware that considerable training, supports and resources are in place to enable teachers to prepare high-quality plans for individual students, including those with special educational needs. These include comprehensive guidelines on teacher professional learning opportunities provided by the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, on planning for students with special educational needs, and comprehensive guidelines on teacher professional learning opportunities provided by the Professional Development Service for Teachers, PDST, on whole-school and individual teacher planning practices. The results of the school self-evaluation support visits are provided by the Department's inspectorate. There is also support and advice on planning for individual students which is provided by the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS. There is a comprehensive suite of published guidelines for teachers of the provision in special education.

There are also a number of very important contextual issues relevant to the substance of this Bill and special education that need to be considered. Prime among these is a comprehensive and ongoing review of the EPSEN Act, which I announced in 2021 and which the Deputies have acknowledged in their contributions. The EPSEN Act provides for the education of children under the age of 18 who have special educational needs. Obviously, the purpose of the review is to ensure the legislation on education for students with special educational needs is up to date, is fully operational, and is reflective of the experience of students and families. Crucially, in the context of the proposed Private Member' Bill, this includes those sections of the Act relating to individual education plans, open collaboration, and consultation at the heart of this review.

All stakeholders are being invited to engage with the process. I have set up a number of steps with the Department on the review of this important legislation. A steering group, a working group and an advisory group have all been established, and all of the groups have had multiple engagements. Significant work was undertaken during the summer months in 2022 to prepare public surveys and consultation papers and to inform members of the public of the review. This online and public consultation phase was launched by the Department on 30 November 2022. As of 1 March last, we have received more than 18,000 replies. That survey is being extended and remains open until 24 March. After that, focus groups will be organised at the conclusion of the public survey to explore the key themes that arise as a result of the survey analysis. That review is due to be completed by the last quarter of 2023, which I believe was one of the Deputy's questions. Given the importance of the review and its current stage of development, it would not be appropriate to progress the Private Member's Bill while this review is being undertaken.

Another important contextual factor in considering this Bill is the recently announced expansion of the NCSE. I was delighted to secure as part of the budgetary process for 2023 additional investment of nearly €13 million to support that. We will see an increase of over 50% in staffing levels in the NCSE, providing for an additional 161 staff, including additional SENOs who obviously have day-to-day engagement with schools.

As I outlined at the outset, there is merit in having system-level information and data in respect of all aspects of special education provision as a means of informing special education policy development. Included in these data and information is the number of students availing of additional supports in schools. The introduction of the SET model in 2017 removed the need for a diagnosis of disability. Fundamentally, the SET model acknowledges that schools and teachers know their students best and are best placed to determine which students require additional support at any given time. They are also best placed to monitor the effectiveness of measures put in place. This is a fairer, more equitable way of working and schools have been really good in applying the key principle underpinning the allocation model which is that the child with the greatest level of need should get the greatest level of support.

As part of the introduction of the SET model which recognises that schools and teachers know their students best, the Department also requires schools to have student support plans for children with special educational needs. These plans are intended to enable schools to track the student's pathway through the continuum of support and to allow schools to document the student's progress over time. Critically, the student support plan assists schools in providing an appropriate level of support to the student in line with his or her ability and need. Typically the plan will document the student's needs and abilities as identified by teachers, the targets for improvement that have been set, as well as the measures being implemented to achieve those targets. The student support plan is a living document which is updated as the needs of the child change. It is agreed and shared with parents so that everyone is working towards the same common educational goals for the child. I know from my engagement with schools that these plans are an integral part of how schools support children with special educational needs.

However, mindful of the need to have greater levels of data and information regarding the prevalence of such plans for individual students, I will be requesting the NCSE to examine how schools might be supported to provide aggregated data as to the number of students being supported in schools. As I referenced earlier, schools have access to a considerable number of guidelines and resources to assist them in improving their provision, both generally and in the area of special education. That said, I am conscious that we can always improve our own work. I want schools to be well supported in their work to plan for individual students in particular because we need to get it right for our most vulnerable students. I will be asking my officials to consider how schools can be supported through the development of a quality assurance framework which will help to promote excellent practice in the preparation of plans for individual students and support schools, teachers and parents to collaborate on the optimal educational and care responses appropriate to each child's individual needs.

The Deputy mentioned the UNCRPD. We are currently considering the NCSE's policy advice on special educational provision which touches on many aspects of our school system. We will be consulting extensively with education stakeholders in addressing how we implement the recommendations contained in the report.

I support the intentions underpinning this Bill. I have acknowledged that it is both important and necessary to have system-level data and information relating to the prevalence of individual education plans in schools. It is also important to ensure that schools' work in this area is of a high standard. As I have outlined, a number of significant developments are either in progress or planned which will address the prevalence and quality issues that are raised in this Bill. However, these will require time in order to progress and for that reason, I am proposing a timed amendment. I thank the Deputies for raising these important matters and look forward to the debate.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin by reading into the record the contents of the Bill that Deputies Tully, Guirke and Ó Laoghaire have put forward. It reads as follows:

An Act to amend the Education Act 1998 to grant additional functions to the Inspectorate to examine and report to the Minister on the prevalence and standard of individual educational plans for children with special educational needs on an annual basis; and to provide for related matters.

Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:

Interpretation

1. In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires—

“Act of 1998” means the Education Act 1998;

“Individual Educational Plan” means a written document prepared for a named student with special educational needs specifying the learning goals that are to be achieved by the student over a set period of time and the teaching strategies, resources and supports necessary to achieve these goals;

“Inspectorate” means the Inspectorate appointed under section 13 of the Act of 1998;

“Minister” means the Minister for Education.

Amendment of section 13 of Act of 1998

2. Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act of 1998 is amended— (a) in clause (III), by the insertion of the following after “needs”:

“in particular the prevalence and standard of individual educational plans designed to enhance educational outcomes for children with special educational needs or a disability”,

and

(b) in clause (V), by the insertion of the following after “centres”:

“providing data on the prevalence of individual educational plans for children with special educational needs on an annual basis”.

I wanted to read that into the record of the Dáil because these provisions were part of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 and almost 20 years on, they still have not been implemented. It is not good enough to put this back for another year. The Minister of State said she accepts and welcomes the Bill and will put it forward robustly to the review body, which would be very welcome. That said, I will defer to the Deputies who put the Bill forward.

I support this Bill because there are thousands of children around the country who need help now. The Minister of State has painted a picture that does not reflect what parents and schools are experiencing at the moment. Many parents have told me about the one-to-one classes that their children attend and how schools deal with their child. Teachers and SNAs are getting directions from the NCSE on how to deal with speech and language therapy and so on and for many parents, it feels as if the services are fraying at the edges. Their children are not getting the individual speech and language, physiotherapy or psychological therapies that they need.

We know that by law an assessment of need must be completed for a child within six months but children are not even getting that. Parents are having to go to court to get it. When they get the assessment, the services are not there to access. That is why this Bill is very important. It provides for the inspection of individual education plans for children with special needs and gives the inspectorate the power to standardise those plans.

I was contacted recently by the Dublin 12 Campaign 4 Autism Inclusion, with which the Minister of State is very familiar, about the state of the children's disability network team, CDNT, in the area. The CDNT has one speech and language therapist, one occupational therapist, one psychologist and one physiotherapist who will be part time for the next few weeks. The service just cannot work like this. It is going to lead to even longer waiting lists, with a huge number of children and families struggling for somewhere to go.

There are 370 children linked in with the CDNT on the Armagh Road. We have a very special school beside the CDNT base. We were all delighted when the Minister of State met the call for a special school in Crumlin, which opened on the Armagh Road. Our Lady of Hope special school has been open for two years but it has no psychologist, no physiotherapist and no speech and language therapist. There are no services whatsoever in that school which is working with children with very high levels of need. The Minister of State said that the key principle is that the child with the greatest level of need should get the greatest level of support. The children at Our Lady of Hope are not getting that support, even though they are in a special school.

I put a question to the Minister for Health on this and was told it was not under his remit. I then put it to the Minister for Education but was told it was not under her remit either and it was suggested that I go back to the HSE.

It is going from the Department of Education to-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Disability.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is education.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Disability.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will resubmit the questions when we come back after the break next week. There is a distance between what we are hearing officially and what is happening on the ground. Parents feel that the 40-plus children put into that special school were just put into a building and did not get the wraparound services they need. There is an occupational therapy room in the school but no occupational therapist. The room cannot be used as a result. The parents feel their children have been let down. It is like the Department just took them off the list, put them in the building and said it had done its part. Individual education plans for children with special needs could assist those children big time. Unless such supports are provided in schools, particularly in the special schools, children will not be able to reach their full potential in any shape or form. That is the general feeling of parents with children in special schools, so I am supporting the Bill.

We saw the "RTÉ Investigates" programme on psychologists last Monday. During the Topical Issue debate earlier, Deputy Tully and one of the Fine Gael Deputies stated that the profession will not be regulated for another couple of years. Even though those involved want to do it tomorrow, it is not going to happen for another couple of years. We have a situation where parents are going to private psychologists because they cannot get the assessments done via the public system. They are paying for those assessments out of their own pockets. Many of these people are single parents. They are affected by the impact of the energy crisis and everything else. They are being told that the assessments are not being accepted because it is not clear that they are up to a certain standard. That is why I will support the Bill. It puts in place for children and parents a pathway to support children by means of a plan for mainstream schools. I will be delighted to hear what the Minister of State has to say.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work Deputies Tully and Guirke have put into this important Bill. All children who need an individual educational plan should get an individual educational plan. The EPSEN Act was enacted in 2004 to provide education in an inclusive mainstream setting. That is unfortunately not happening. There is a situation where neurodiverse children are bussed out of their community at a huge expense to the Exchequer. Taxis and buses cost a phenomenal amount. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure it costs about €70,000 a day for southside neurodiverse children to be bussed out of their community to schools further out.

The 55 or 58 school building projects which have been held up were mentioned. My constituency has Harold's Cross Educate Together National School, Harold's Cross Educate Together Secondary School, Shellybanks Educate Together National School and Sandymount Park Educate Together Secondary School. They have all been delayed. That will have a significant impact on children. I was contacted by Involve Autism, which I know the Minister of State has worked closely with, and Neurodiversity - Irishtown, Ringsend and Pearse Street. They are distraught that this will have a huge impact on them. Places for neurodiverse children are already short. One just has to talk to Involve Autism, which will say that there are almost no school places for neurodiverse children and children with autism in Dublin 6 and Dublin 6W. That has to be addressed. The hold-up of the schools building programme will have a significant impact. Like I said, parents have already contacted me to express concern. We need to ensure these families can get some solace. I know it is not all in the Minister of State's Department. The Department of Finance also has an impact.

Children who are the most vulnerable in our society and who have been neglected and abandoned for many years now face more uncertainty and have no clarity about whether they will have school places in the coming months and years. These schools, including Harold's Cross, Shellybanks and Sandymount Park, have huge waiting lists not just for neurotypical children but for neurodiverse children. We have to address that. The Government is adding further concern to the already significant concern that parents of children with autism have. We can have all the plans and reviews but if we do not have the schools, it is academic. I ask that the green light be given to the schools I mentioned.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Tully, Guirke, Joan Collins, Ó Ríordáin and Andrews for their contributions. I will briefly mention some of the issues that were addressed. Regarding the EPSEN Act, which most Deputies raised, it is important to recognise that our system looks very different from how it did in 2004. The most obvious development is the number of people working in the school system who did not in 2004. Almost 40,000 people are wholly and exclusively dedicated to looking after children with additional needs, including special needs assistants, special education teachers and the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS. It is important to mention that those are key elements of the education system.

In response to Deputy Joan Collins, therapeutic supports often come up. I am working closely with the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, Deputy Anne Rabbitte, on that. It is under her remit but it has an impact on me with regard to special schools, which the Deputy mentioned. I am looking at it and at trying to progress the school inclusion model, which will assist in that regard. It is something we could do in the interim, not just in the future.

Although he is not here, I acknowledge Deputy Ó Ríordáin's comments on the building projects, which I know Deputy Andrews mentioned too. As they mentioned, there have been ongoing conversations with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Education, Deputy Foley, about capital. There was an overspend at the Department of Education but that is being sorted out. It is of acute interest to me. As Minister of State with responsibility for special education, I want to make sure that no child is left without an appropriate place in September. We are seized of and dealing with the issue. We hope that will all be sorted in due course. I thank Deputies for their Private Member's Bill and for bringing it to my attention.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge my co-proposer, Deputy Guirke, and Deputies Andrews, Collins and Ó Ríordáin for speaking in support of this Bill. I am disappointed the Minister of State has proposed an amendment to delay the Bill for 12 months. Children with additional needs have waited long enough. They have waited for almost 20 years for these supports which were promised under the EPSEN Act. I do not really see an issue with allowing this Bill to proceed in order to allow children who are currently in school to receive the support they need. I know the review of the EPSEN Act is ongoing. I hope IEP is going to be part of that legislation anyway. It would then be in place for children who currently need that support.

I taught in a school prior to being elected to this House. We had a large proportion of students with additional educational needs in the school. We had a very committed special education teacher in the school who worked with all the staff to prepare IEPs for the students. We knew we did not have to do it but we felt it was worthwhile. It helped the students but it also helped the teachers to have targets and goals to work towards. One could measure how a student was doing in the school and it worked extremely well, but the fact is that many schools do not do that. The fact we had so many students coming into our school with special educational needs was that other schools did not want to take them. They did not want to be bothered with having to provide the extra supports and resources to deal with them. I know that has been addressed with the Education (Admission to Schools) Act and that things have improved, with more schools taking students with additional needs, but that is how it was happening.

On the consultation, I was under the impression the Minister of State indicated at a committee last year that the review would be completed by early 2023. Maybe I have mistaken the dates but the consultation is ongoing at the moment. A disabled persons' organisation, Disabled Women Ireland, was at the Joint Committee on Disability Matters today and it has put forward a submission to the consultation on EPSEN. The witnesses said they put themselves under pressure to get it in on time, only for the deadline to be extended. They asked if they and others could be made aware of that. It did not just happen with consultation on EPSEN but it happens all the time and they said it can be hard to engage. The information is often not accessible, which we need to be aware of. Information should be accessible to disabled people.

The Minister of State mentioned that the need for a diagnosis was removed so that students could receive supports and resources in school. I am aware of that but unfortunately a diagnosis is still required by schools for children with autism to gain entry into either a specialist school or a class. That puts significant pressure on the assessment of need process. We know we do not have enough psychologists. There has been a discussion of psychologists and the lack of regulations which could be brought up again.

We have to move towards a much more inclusive form of education. If all the supports were put into mainstream schools - I know there is a considerable number that is improving all the time, which I welcome - there need for more so that children can go to their local school and get the support they need. Many more students could get the education they need in their local school rather than having to travel a distance to get entry into a special autism class.

I am disappointed that there is a time delay on this and will oppose the amendment.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Joint Committee on Disability Matters has called for the commencement of the sections of the 2004 Act that confer statutory rights on the child, including commencement of the statutory entitlement to educational assessment, consequent development of a statutory individual educational plan and a detailed educational service to be implemented on foot of this plan. It is disappointing that the Minister of State is kicking the Bill down the road. As Deputy Ó Ríordáin said another way, it is my opinion that the Minister of State wants to put it to bed or get rid of it, which is not right for children with special needs. It is like the Bill on the right to be forgotten and many others. Children with additional needs have been waiting for 20 years and the Minister of State thinks it is appropriate to kick it further down the road.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a review.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 22 March 2023.