Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

Researchers throughout the world have differed on this. If there was a clear consensus across the education and research communities of the world this would not be a difficulty. There is no consensus. In recent weeks people have heard top psychologists debating the merits of the different systems. What is clear is that there is merit in all of the different approaches and methods in use for children with autism. That is why because there are so many interventions and so many needs in every child with autism, it is important to ensure that we offer a flexible approach so that those needs can be met. This has been borne out by the Irish task force on autism which conducted a review of international research on the whole spectrum of autism spectrum disorder. That report identified that even ABA, an intensive intervention for young children with autism, "will continue to be the subject of peer review controversy". The general finding of the task force was that "no definitive approach that supports one approach as being better than others for all children with autistic spectrum disorders or supports a single approach for all aspects of development, nor is there any evidence by which children could be matched by particular approaches". Individual members of the task force have held different views but that was the group finding of the task force.

It recommended a range of methodologies for all children in all school settings. That is precisely the advice that we are following. This is also what autism groups in the UK are saying, what is said in Canada, in the United States, and even in Northern Ireland the group said that what is required in education is a child-centred approach rather than a method-centred approach. That is borne out with every child. One can always have flexibility of methods in dealing with a child but one cannot fit a child to a particular method. I have seen the methods PECS, TEACCH and ABA in use and I find each of them to be valuable.

I assure Senators that my Department will ensure that children who would benefit from ABA will have access to it. That is important and is very much a central part of our policy, though that message is not getting across. Our commitment to this in the Department and in Government is shown in that we have ensured that a range of ABA training programmes, varying from on-line to ten week courses as well as post-graduate qualifications, have been undertaken by teachers who are working in our special classes. Within the Department training opportunities have been expanded by having a specialist behaviour team, headed up by a person with a Ph.D. in ABA. Consultancy grants for ABA have also been provided to schools. It is wrong to say that I, or, indeed, Department officials, are against ABA. That is not the case. What we are conscious of is the fact that international best practice and research warns against relying on one method.