Joe O'Toole (Independent)

During the Second Stage debate and in a number of other discussions on the Bill, it was acknowledged that the legislation would stand or fall on the application of section 13. I agree with the points made by Senator McCarthy on these amendments. It may be a question of syntax but if the amendment is not accepted, the legislation will be at the mercy of an official in the Department of Finance. I disagree with the initial response of the Minister of State. The amendment does not propose that the Minister for Finance should not control the amount of money that is paid out each year to the Department of Education and Science because that is the Minister's decision and it is his duty.

There may be a problem with the syntax of the section. The Minister for Education and Science receives funding for the year and decides how it should be spent. In this instance, however, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Education and Science must refer to the Minister for Finance for his consent as to how the money is spent. The Minister for Finance is being brought into the operational work of both Departments. That is where the Bill falls down. It was never contemplated nor intended for this to be the case and it is an unnecessary complication.

We have all dealt with the Department of Finance. With due respects to the officials from the Department, they have no experience of dealing with a child with special educational needs nor with the problems of the school. They will never have dealt with the individual education plans. They will simply look at the expenditure because that is their duty. Under this Bill, these officials have the right to intervene and to object on these issues. That is unacceptable. It may not be intended to be so but that is the way it is written in the Bill.

Section 13 makes section 9(7) operative. The oxygen for section 9(7) is the money provided under section 13. If the money is stopped under section 13, section 9(7) does not operate. Section 13(1) states:

The Minister and the Minister for Health and Children shall each, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, provide such moneys and other resources as are determined by him or her for the purposes of the preparation and implementation of education plans...

It is not decided on the basis of need or demand but on the basis of a decision made by the Department of Finance. The situation will arise where the operation of the Bill will work well and everything will be in place with everybody doing their work, but when it comes to implementation, the Minister for Finance will say, "I have thought about this and for all the work done this year I will allow one cent". He would be in compliance with the Act in that case.

On Second Stage, Senator Fitzgerald made a valid point that this was something quite new. The latter part of section 13 involves the Constitution where it refers to, "the provision of resources by the State in fulfilment of its duties under Article 42 of the Constitution...". There is no pressure on the Minister to make adequate resources available.

My amendment proposes that adequate provision be made out of the moneys provided by the Department of Finance for the full preparation and implementation of the education plans. There should be no interference by the Minister for Finance during that process. That is not an unreasonable proposal. I acknowledge all the amendments cannot be accepted but we take the view that the Minister for Finance should not be involved in stopping the availability of money for the preparation of an education plan for a child with special needs. We also propose that in terms of the recognition of Article 42 of the Constitution, the Minister for Finance must make adequate provision to allow for the full preparation and implementation of the education plans.

If the Government does not accept the amendment, it means it is afraid of a commitment to the full preparation and implementation of education plans. Of all the points made to me about this legislation, this issue has been raised by the INTO on a number of occasions. The INTO takes the view that the Bill is good legislation if the money is put up front. That is also the view of principal teachers. Class teachers and teachers in special education hold similar views. Will the money be made available? We may be overly cynical on this matter but the view is that it will not. That scepticism could be scotched by the acceptance of this amendment, by giving a commitment to ensure the full implementation and full preparation of the child's education plan.

Adequate provision is not an absolute. The word "adequate" requires judgment. It implies reasonableness and allows us to see the operation of the Act. As a reasonable person, the Minister of State must be swayed by my arguments. I have no doubt she will agree with the points I make and in all reasonableness will concede that given the extra work to be imposed on boards of management, principal teachers and staff members and acknowledging the greater expectations of parents, the necessary funding should be provided.