Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I totally support the well made arguments of Senator Jim D'Arcy on the changes in the junior cycle curriculum, particularly his comments on the teaching of English and History, as I taught both these subjects. One day's in-service training for teachers to come to terms with the whole new system will not be adequate. The success of the system is predicated entirely on the full co-operation and understanding of the teaching cohort.

I have said before that the reason many young people find history unpalatable is because of the way it is being taught. The students are being fed a load of facts without ever trying to find out why things happened. History can be an enthralling subject. The Chinese communist leader Deng Xiaoping when asked for his assessment of the French Revolution said: "It is too early to say". That might be one extreme but during the time I was teaching, the teaching of history was not fit for purpose.

May I ask the Acting Leader to invite the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton to the House to discuss the manner in which medical investigations are conducted for those who apply for benefits based on disability, such as the invalidity pension? It is clearly important that the medical regime is strict to ensure only people who are entitled to these pensions would get them. In my view there is a lack of transparency in the process. A person may have to wait for months to see a doctor and then faces a further waiting period to get a result and yet receives a letter stating in one line that he or she is suitable or unsuitable for the grant. I do not think that is good enough in this day and age. People should receive a comprehensive answer as they are entitled to know the reason they have been deemed unsuitable. I am not casting any aspersions on the medical corps in the Department of Social Protection, but the system must be transparent. There is a valid suspicion in the community that the medical process is often used to save money by delaying and dragging out the process. How many medical opinions are overturned on appeal? I have seen a number of cases , in which it seemed clear to me that the applicant was entitled to an invalidity pension but was refused in the first instances, but some 12 or 18 months later following an appeal process is adjudicated to be entitled to the benefit. That person's condition may not have changed one whit in the meantime. The reason I raise this issue is as a result of a case I am involved in. An individual with profound Parkinson's disease has had to wait for two years for his invalidity benefit to be granted. This former self-employed man has been living on his savings and I think it is very unfair that it has taken such a long period to be granted an invalidity payment. I would like a comprehensive explanation of the Department of Social Protection's medical procedure.