Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a standard provision which should have been included in the original text of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order because it involves a charge on the Exchequer. Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4. Therefore, amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, paragraph (c), to delete line 10.

I welcome the Minister. The amendment has to do with the precise responsibilities of the Minister for Education and Skills in supporting students who face particular issues and are disadvantaged.

The amendment seeks to reverse the proposal to delete section 2(1)(f) of the 1998 Act. Were this provision to stand, the deletion would have the effect of removing the Minister's responsibility for providing various student supports, speech therapy in particular.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to delineate the measures in paragraph (n) to exclude any responsibility on the Minister's part for health and personal social services within the meaning of the Health Act 2004. This is at odds with the Minister's obligation under section 13 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 to provide resources for "the preparation and implementation of education plans prepared in respect of children with special educational needs" with the objective of ensuring these children have the same rights to an appropriate education as their peers.

In its broadest and most important dimension, education is about supporting human beings during their most important phase of development. One cannot separate what we traditionally understand as being contained within the notion of education, that is, academic instruction and the formation of ideas and values, from the notion of cura personalis. Each individual faces a different set of life circumstances and challenges. For this reason, our educational architecture places a duty of the Minister to ensure that, consistent with the means available to him, students facing particular circumstances are supported. This touches on a range of issues, including speech therapy.

The combined legislation provides for the interconnection of the roles of the Ministers for Education and Skills and Health, the HSE and the health authorities generally in the delivery of the services required by pupils. I do not understand why the approach adopted in the legislation is to remove the problem, as it were, from the Minister for Education and Skills. This is a stilted view of education. We are moving from a situation where the Minister must see to it that students have everything they need to one where he or his successors must not become involved in the provision of the health and personal social services that are seen to be the responsibility of the Department of Health and the health service. This is the opposite of joined-up thinking. Responsibility needs to remain with both Ministers. On this basis, I propose that we delete line 10 and forgo the proposed substitution of wording in paragraph (n).

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendments. As I stated on Second Stage last week, I understand where the Minister is coming from, given that the HSE has often used the fact that the Minister for Education and Skills has responsibility as an excuse for not stepping up to the mark. However, I have a concern. There is a gap arising from the failure to assign, at the same time, a positive responsibility to the Minister for Health. The National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education, NABMSE, is very concerned in this regard. I am willing to support the change proposed by the Minister provided there is a positive corresponding responsibility assigned to the Minister for Health. In the absence of such a balancing provision, I would share the concerns expressed by NABMSE that a lacuna may arise.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 3 and 4 in the names of Senators Rónán Mullen and Feargal Quinn. The effect of the proposals would be to maintain the position that the details of support services under section 7 of the Education Act 1998 are defined in section 2 of the Act to include speech therapy services, despite the position that such services are provided by the Health Service Executive and that funding is made to that body for the provision of these services. In addition, no service currently being provided by the Department will no longer be provided as a result of the revised legislation. Rather, the provision in the Bill as published is necessary to clarify the position in regard to the delivery of speech therapy services to students of school-going age.

In regard to Senator Averil Power's concerns, the legislative framework will be regularised in accordance with the de facto position, which is that the provision of speech therapy services is a matter for the HSE. The proposed provisions will not impact on the availability, through the HSE, of speech therapy services for children with special educational needs. The Department will continue to support the co-ordinated delivery of services to families of children with special educational needs and to work with service-providing partners in the health and disability sectors through the interdepartmental cross-sectoral team.