Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)

I remind Senator Ryan that the word used in section 13 is "may" and not "shall". It makes no significant difference whether we include or delete the phrase "with the consent of the Minister for Finance". The inclusion of the phrase is consistent with the role of Government and the way it operates. We discussed this matter yesterday and I do not propose discussing it in detail.

The Bill is given strength by subsection 9(7), which we referred to yesterday and which I may not deal with now, and section 13. Section 13 places a legal imperative on the Ministers for Education and Science, Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and also on the Minister for Finance. The section provides that all Ministers must, in allocating resources for the purposes of the Bill, have regard to the constitutional imperative contained in Article 42. The Constitution requires that children with special educational needs be given a level of support comparable in effect to their peers who do not have such needs. That provision is clearly enshrined in the Constitution.

To decide whether a level of support is adequate requires a subjective judgment. If the Minister for Education and Science decides that the support provided in a particular year is adequate and the Minister for Finance agrees to it, anyone may disagree with that perception of adequacy and seek a judicial review in the courts. The right to a judicial review remains, even when the Minister for Education and Science decides that a level of support is adequate, and a parent may take that course. The powers vested in parents, or appellants, in the amended section 13 are unique and unprecedented. This section does much more for the Bill than the deletion of phrase "with the consent of the Minister for Finance".