Joe O'Toole (Independent)

It would be a little unfair for me to have a go at the Chair when I can answer the Senator's interruptions elsewhere.

I will give a couple of examples, one of which is current, of why I have doubts about this legislation. The first relates to the right to an independent assessment. I have been observing this matter carefully. It has been under consideration for five years and discussed at all sorts of levels. When I was involved in the Irish National Teachers Organisation I demanded this type of assessment in educational terms. It is an issue I have regularly raised.

Deputy Paul McGrath and I were recently discussing some of the difficulties in this area with a group of parents. Deputy McGrath became aware of one case which we examined closely. It involved a child on the positive side of the autism spectrum, in the Asperger's syndrome area. That child was seeking an assessment and not getting it, which is not unusual, as all in this House know. Not unusually either, the parents and the school decided to pay for an assessment and got it from a duly qualified person. They then got a second assessment. Both assessments indicated the child's needs. I will not go into detail, but this demonstrates where the problem lies, where there is lack of trust and a breach of confidence. The child's needs were quite clear. They presented the details to the Department of Education and Science, which told them to get lost. The Department did not seek to have the child assessed, nor did it say the assessment was wrong. It simply said "No" and refused to deal with the matter.

Deputy Paul McGrath advised the parents to seek recourse to the law and advised the Department that the case was going to court. It was an open and shut case. The Minister of State understands this as well as I do. The case is brought to court. The needs of the child are demonstrated. The previous judgments are looked at and those taking the case are given what they have been seeking. As soon as the Department of Education and Science took note of the case, after political intervention by Deputy McGrath, it conceded. It is unacceptable that parents must take such a course of action.

We are currently looking at a similar case of a child with speech therapy needs. The same process has taken place, with two assessments, and the Department of Education and Science is saying "No". The child is not to have the services of a special needs assistant or whatever is required. This is why I have a difficulty.

I will keep my comments to practical matters. There is a shortage of every kind of therapist imaginable, including occupational therapists, physiotherapists and all others. I do not care whose fault it is, but I could address the situation in a week. I would tell the universities I want a course up and running next September or 12 months from next September. I would have done this three years ago. I believe passionately in this. If the universities refused, I would then take in and give full recognition to people who qualified in the UK, the US or elsewhere. This must be done very quickly as otherwise it will not work.

Four or five years ago, when the educational psychological service was being established for schools in Ireland, there was a major shortage of educational psychologists on this island. I made representations at that stage to both Ministers in the South and in the North. The Minister in the South listened and said that things would move on, which they did to some extent. We have the beginnings of a service but we are still well behind. The people involved are doing nothing but assessing all the time. The real support of educational psychologists at school level involves them sitting down with teachers and planning a programme once they have identified the difficulties and how they might be resolved. That is hardly happening because the NEPS psychologists are being run off their feet.

In Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness was the Minister for Education. I made him the same proposal as I made to the Minister in the South and he put it in place. There are two ways of creating educational psychologists. One can deal with qualified teachers with a degree in educational psychology or else with qualified psychologists with a degree in education. One of those groups is chosen and the members then study for a master's degree in educational psychology. It is a very long course but one would be taking on people who are already two thirds of the way there. The Northern Minister, Martin McGuinness, continued to pay those people. If they were teachers they continued to be paid while they were concluding their college courses as long as they were to return to the service. The same was done for the psychologists. That is how matters can be handled but we refuse to do that here.

That is why I have grievous doubts. In this legislation, instead of "enough" or "adequate" resources, the word all over the legislation is "appropriate" resources. The health board officers and the Minister are to provide "appropriate" resources. This Bill boils down to one section, section 5(3). I know we are not discussing the Bill, so that is not what we are voting on tonight. I am as good at English as the next person, yet I read this 20 times in an effort to understand it. The following is all one sentence and comprises 133 words:

An allocation under subsection (2) in a financial year shall be such that in the opinion of the Minister concerned, having had regard to the extent of his or her obligations in that year in relation to the allocation of the moneys available to him or her as aforesaid for different purposes in the performance in that year of the functions conferred on him or her other than by this Act, the amount remaining after the allocation that is available to the Minister as aforesaid for that year is not less than the amount that is appropriate for the purposes of the performance by the Minister of his or her functions in that year.

People are supposed to understand this and we are trying to make legislation accessible. My reference was to section 5(3) of the Bill. Section 5(2), which is very cleverly drafted, requires the Minister to make a certain amount of money available for the particular provisions of this Bill. The Minister is required to attend to that first, but in such a way as not to leave too little for the other responsibilities of the Minister under all other legislation. Having considered all those other responsibilities, the Minister must ensure there is an "appropriate" amount, whatever that means, left over.

These are the sorts of difficulties involved in the legislation. Sentences of the opaque type I quoted are very difficult. This Bill will come before the House. Before we take section 2 of the Bill I plead with the House to organise consultations with the disability groups. The Minister referred to consulting with these groups in drawing up the Bill and I applaud that consultation, which was well done. However, I would have preferred if the groups had also been given the right to consider the Bill before it was published, but that did not happen. We should get their views on how the Bill meets their needs because no Member of the House is an expert on disability. While we will do our best in dealing with the Bill, before we take section 2 we should sit down with the disability groups to consider the legislation and find out what it means to all of us.

As with all other issues concerning disability, the legislation can work if the resources are made available. However, it is stitched up in a triple lock. It is impossible to get the money if the Department of Finance decides not enough is to be provided. The Department of Finance gives the money to the Department of Health and Children which must ensure money is available for everything else. It must prioritise putting money into this area but cannot give it a higher priority than other areas. It is a classic Department of Finance trick. It would take a genius to work out the ins and outs of the 133 word sentence to which I referred. This is where the doubt is and why I have grave reservations about the working of the Bill and whether people with disabilities will have rights. They have the right to an independent assessment but they will not necessarily have the right to get what they are looking for out of this.