Seanad debates

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Special Educational Needs Services Provision: Motion

 

2:55 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend my colleague, Senator Mullen, for tabling this important matter, about which I only became aware recently as I travelled from one committee meeting to another.

Two charming young women approached me and lobbied me about this matter because they both have Down's syndrome children with a reasonably high IQ. It is really appalling that the children should be disadvantaged simply because they have a higher IQ. That seems to be a real paradox.

Senator Mullen would be mad to accept the amendment because, as the Minister knows very well, when one changes the requirement to implement a policy to a requirement to consider its implementation, it means nothing. There is a progressive Minister and in his case it might mean something, but there is absolutely no guarantee if the wording is diluted to include only "consider". It would not be acceptable to the parents.

The other point that is noteworthy is that even in the Government's amendment, the entire preamble, or all the argument, is accepted. That effectively rules out Senator Darcy's reservations. He said it would be very disappointing if there were any schools that did as outlined. The Government has already accepted that the practice may exist because it has accepted the preamble where the statement is made. It is disappointing. It is not disappointing that Senator Mullen referred to it; it is very disappointing that it happens to be a fact. I know it is because I was approached by schools that said the fact that schools near them were issuing refusals or finding ways around the system meant they had a disproportionate number of the kinds of students in question. It appears to be a fact and the Government has not disputed this in its amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.