 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dáil Debates & Questions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
February 17 2009
Dáil Debates
Parliamentary Questions
DÁIL DEBATES Deputy David Stanton (FG): I want to mention again the philosophy we should take on board when dealing with older people. We should not see older people as a problem, but that philosophy appears to permeate this Bill and the thinking in it. I urge Deputies from all sides not to refer to older people or think of them as a problem that should be hidden away in a nursing home. We must look at other solutions and ways of enriching the lives of older people. Most people want to live at home for as long as they can and all the supports necessary for that should be put in place. I want to discuss the situation with regard to charging long-term residential care patients whose income is from disability allowance, which is paid at a lower rate than the maximum rate of the State pension. When new price regulations came into effect in January this year, many people with disabilities in long-term residential care had to pay 75% of their allowance towards residential care. I understand that some 32% of people with an intellectual disability in Ireland are in full-time residential care. This could amount to more than 8,000 people. Some 70% of people with an intellectual disability who are in residential care are under 55 years and they receive a disability allowance, not a pension. When the Government introduced the new charges, it contended that these rates are maximum charges and should be based on the assessment of need. However, Inclusion Ireland argues that people’s needs are not always independently assessed and the maximum charge is routinely applied. Many people with intellectual disabilities could spend 50 years or more, their whole lifetime, in residential care as parents are often not in a position to provide appropriate care at the level required to adult children with intellectual disabilities. I realise the current philosophy is to help people with intellectual disabilities to live in the community, as much as possible. That is the way it should be and we should try to move in that direction as much as we can. However, this is not always possible. Many older people only spend a few years in residential care because they are near the end of their lives. I suggest a different charging scheme could be implemented for people with intellectual and other disabilities which require them to live in residential care their whole lives. We need to consider this cadre of people who are separate to older people. The emphasis has been on older people, but I want to draw attention to the needs of people with intellectual and other disabilities who spend much of their time in residential care. We should tease out their needs on Committee Stage. Inclusion Ireland noted that leaving people with an intellectual disability with just over €50 per week to spend after charges are deducted from their disability allowance does not promote inclusion in society. The charge has also been increased at a time when we still have no standards or independent inspection of residential services for people with an intellectual disability. I urge the Minister of State to take this matter on board. Residential and inspection standards have been developed for older people living in residential nursing homes, and this is as it should be. Standards for residential services are vital, not just for nursing homes to prevent elder abuse cases, but also for people with disabilities in long-term care. I understand there are still no standards in place for residential institutions which cater for people with intellectual disabilities. The new charging scheme applies to these people, but the same standards do not. There is work to be done in that regard. Standards were due to come into effect in early 2009, but they are still not in place. This means there are no national standards or inspections available for these people. The issue of funding is also crucial. Has the Minister or the Government ever considered some form of funding through the social insurance scheme for nursing home care? This could be funded through the PRSI system and could possibly replace the current private health insurance system. I understand the health levy amounts to a considerable sum and that it took in over €1 billion in 2007. The estimate for 2008 is €1,330 million. These funds currently are awarded to the Department of Health and Children and form part of the Vote of the HSE. Is there any stipulation with regard to how that levy is spent? Has the Government examined the possibility of raising it as a means for people to make a personal contribution towards future nursing home costs? As I said previously, people needing nursing home care could sign their houses over to a relative while they are still fit and after five years that person would own the property and the State could not pursue nursing home charges on that property. There are, therefore, anomalies in the Bill. People who work hard all their lives and save will be hit, but those who do not, will not be hit. I look forward to Committee Stage.
Deputy Mary Upton (L): I thank the Ceann Comhairle’s office for the opportunity to raise this matter. I was shocked by the content of the announcement early last week and the way in which it was made. It was wheeled out in the midst of the hot debate on the economic climate, almost as if it were being buried beneath it. It would have escaped under the radar were it not for the teachers, parents and pupils who will be most seriously affected by the unilateral decision. There was no debate, consultation or reference. Approximately 120 classes throughout the country will be affected. When I analysed the figures more closely, I found that 20 of the 77 classes in the greater Dublin area are in my constituency of Dublin South-Central. It is a considerable depletion of resources in an area that badly needs all of the resources and educational supports that it can get. Most significantly, nine of the 20 classes are in Ballyfermot. As far as I can see, only one primary school in Ballyfermot has not been affected by the decision. Other schools in the Dublin 8, 10 and 12 areas will also lose classes, including Crumlin, Inchicore, Drimnagh and the south inner city. Overall, the total area has been disproportionately hit by the Minister’s decision. That there was no consultation or discussion with teachers or parents prior to the announcement is unforgivable. Given that no reference was made to an appeals procedure, there seems to be no way back, no moratorium and no possibility of combining classes with other schools that might be located within the area. Having spoken to some teachers both last week and today, it appears as though the magic figure of nine was dreamed up from somewhere. Perhaps it was known to a select few but clearly not to the teachers in the aforementioned schools, who are now losing these classes. As far as I can ascertain, they were never officially informed of the necessity to have nine pupils to justify retention of such a class. I wish to mention St. Catherine’s national school, Donore Avenue, which is an atypical example. Its position differs slightly from the other schools because it is a Church of Ireland school. It is the only such school in the area and a child who is in a special class at that school and who wishes to stay within the Church of Ireland ethos for his or her education has no choice. However, I believe choices were available in the area. Mater Dei national school, Basin Lane, James’s Street primary school, Scoil Treasa Naofa and Francis Street CBS are all in a catchment area with St Catherine’s. Moreover, there are two schools on Mourne Road and two Loreto schools in Crumlin, the Oblate primary school, Inchicore, and a school in Goldenbridge. There are three Dominican schools in Ballyfermot, two De La Salle schools, two Mary Queen of Angels schools and one St. Louise school. Such schools could be bracketed together in subgroups and one could put some effort into ascertaining how they could be co-ordinated and perhaps the classes could be spread around. While this is a matter for the Minister, it is something of which account must be taken. According to the 2006 census, the last year for which there are data, Dublin South-Central is one of the areas of lowest educational attainment in Ireland, historically. The resources that were in place to help to address this situation are now being pulled from under their feet without explanation, alternatives or consultation. I urge the Minister of State, together with the Minister for Education and Science, to reverse this unfair decision. The service should be restored to the schools for the benefit of those students who so badly need it. I believe this was a very shortsighted decision. While there may be a short-term gain of a small amount of money, this is not about money. The €7 million in question is a drop in the ocean relative to the impact it will have on the educational achievement of these children. Deputy Seán Haughey: I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe. I thank the Deputy for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position. It is of great concern to me that there has been so much misinformation and misrepresentation of the notification to a number of schools by my Department that they were no longer entitled to retain teachers in classes for pupils with mild general learning disabilities. The first and most important point to make is that all pupils with a mild general learning disability have, and will continue to have, additional teaching resources to support their education. I also assure the Deputy that schools in Ballyfermot were not specifically targeted. All primary schools have been allocated additional teaching resources to enable them to support pupils with high incidence special educational needs, including mild general learning disability. Each school was given such additional teaching resources under the general allocation model of learning support and resource teaching introduced in 2005. I emphasise that such additional teaching resources have not been withdrawn from any school. Schools can decide how best to use this allocation based on the needs of the pupils. Most pupils with a mild general learning disability are included in ordinary classes with their peers and are supported by their class teacher. The curriculum is flexible in order that teachers can cater for the needs of pupils of different abilities. This policy of inclusion has widespread support within the educational community. This approach is in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Schools can use their resource and learning support allocation to give pupils special help it they need it. This might be done with a teacher working with a group of pupils or on a one-to-one basis for a few hours each week. Before the general allocation model was introduced, some schools grouped pupils with a mild general learning disability into special classes. Deputies are aware that allocations to schools typically increase or decrease depending on pupil enrolment. In the case of classes for mild general learning disability, the normal pupil-teacher ratio that applies is 11:1. My Department, however, allows for a small reduction in this number and permits a school to retain a teaching post where it has a minimum of nine pupils in the class. The rules also provide that a teacher would no longer be allocated where the number of pupils fell below nine. In the schools in question, the number of pupils dropped below this minimum and the schools no longer qualify for the teaching posts in these classes. This was the sole criterion for selection of schools in this regard. In 2005, when the general allocation model was introduced, schools with additional teachers in classes for mild general learning disability were allowed to retain the teachers for these classes. Effectively, such schools received a double allocation. The number of these special classes has decreased over the years and schools have integrated the pupils into age-appropriate mainstream classes. All the other primary schools in the country that do not have classes for pupils with mild general learning disability cater for these pupils from within the general allocation model. Surely, commentators do not suggest that three or four pupils with a mild general learning disability should be kept in a class of their own, when they could benefit from the interaction of other peers with support from their teacher? There has been unprecedented investment in providing supports for pupils with special needs in recent years. There are now approximately 19,000 adults in our schools working solely with pupils with special needs. There are more than 8,000 resource and learning support teachers in our schools, compared with just 2,000 in 1998. More than 1,000 other teachers support pupils in our special schools. A total of 76 classes for pupils with mild general learning disability are being retained where there are nine pupils or more in these classes. I wish to take this opportunity to emphasise that priority will continue to be given to provision for pupils with special educational needs. The establishment of mild general learning disability classes pre-date many of the developments in special education policy in recent years and we now have a system for providing schools with supports for pupils with high incidence special needs through the general allocation model. The natural sympathy we all have for pupils with special needs and their parents makes it all the more important that we do not cloud facts with emotion. The parents of all children with mild general learning disability need to know that their children in mainstream classes are getting a quality education delivered by committed class teachers and supplemented by additional support from the resource and learning support teacher. This happens every day in schools nationwide. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position regarding this matter. PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS Deputy Damien English (FG): asked the Minister for Health and Children the number and nature of complaints made against mental health units and intellectual disability services here for the years 2007, 2008 and to date in 2009; the details of all reports and documents regarding investigation of such complaints against mental health units and intellectual disability services; the number of these complaints that have been fully investigated, had an investigation commenced but not finalised and had no investigation; Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): My Department receives correspondence on a broad range of issues including complaints. These are referred as appropriate to the Health Service Executive or to the Mental Health Commission. The Health Act 2004 (Complaints) Regulations 2006 (SI 652 of 2006) made under Part 9 of the Health Act 2004, provide for the making of complaints by persons to the HSE and service providers and require the establishment and operation of procedures and arrangements to achieve a fair and reasonable resolution of such complaints. In addition, under the Mental Health Act 2001, the Mental Health Commission may inquire into approved centres, the care and treatment provided to a particular patient etc. The Mental Health Act (Approved Centres) Regulations 2006 require all approved centres to have written operational policies and procedures relating to the making, handling and investigation of complaints. The complaints procedure must be made known to each resident. Deputy Finian McGrath (I): asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when Ireland will ratify the UN convention on persons with a disability; Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy John Moloney): It is the Government’s intention to ratify the UN Convention as quickly as possible,taking into account the need to ensure that all necessary requirements under the Conventionare being met.The Inter-Departmental Committee established by my Department to advise on and monitorthe legislative and administrative actions required to enable the State to ratify the Conventionhas developed a work programme that is being actively addressed by Government Departments.The Disability Act, 2005, underpinned by the National Disability Strategy, meets aconsiderable portion of the Convention’s requirements. However, insofar as my Department isconcerned the Mental Capacity Bill, which is in the course of being drafted by ParliamentaryCounsel, forms an important part of what is required in addition to facilitate ratification of theConvention. Work on what is involved by way of implementation of the various other provisionsin the Convention, which are extensive, continues in the relevant Departments.The Government’s decision on the matter of ratification of the Convention will be made indue course, as it must, on the basis of being fully satisfied that all the requirements are met ineach Department. Deputy John O’Mahony (FG): asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of special needs teachers in County Mayo who will lose their jobs as result of his announcement in February 2009; the schools in County Mayo that will be affected by his announcement of the withdrawal of special needs teachers; Deputy Finian McGrath (I): asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will withdraw the cuts for children with special needs; and the amount of money being saved by these cuts; Deputy Catherine Byrne (FG): asked the Minister for Education and Science the schools in Dublin 8 which will be affected by the newly announced cuts to special needs classes; the cuts that will be imposed on each of these schools; the schools in Dublin 10 which will be affected by the newly announced cuts to special needs classes; the cuts that will be imposed on each of these schools; the schools in Dublin 12 which will be affected by the newly announced cuts to special needs classes; the cuts that will be imposed on each of these schools; the schools in Dublin 20 which will be affected by the newly announced cuts to special needs classes; the cuts that will be imposed on each of these schools; the schools inDublin 6W which will be affected by the newly announced cuts to special needs classes; the cuts that will be imposed on each of these schools; Deputy Tom Hayes (FG): asked the Minister for Education and Science the south Tipperary schools that will be impacted by the decision to cut special teacher support for children with mild general learning disabilities; the number of staff across south Tipperary which will be lost as a result of this decision; and the number of children this will impact on in south Tipperary. Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I wish to advise the deputies that all primary schools have been allocated additional teaching resources to enable them support pupils with high incidence special educational needs including mild general learning disability (MGLD). All primary schools were given these additional teaching resources under the General Allocation Model of learning support/resource teaching introduced in 2005. Schools can decide how best to use this allocation based on the needs of the pupils. Most pupils with a MGLD are included in ordinary classes with their peers and are supported by their class teacher. The curriculum is flexible so that teachers can cater for the needs of children of different abilities. The Deputies will be aware that allocations to schools typically increase or decrease depending on pupil enrolment. In the case of classes for MGLD the normal pupil teacher ratio that applies is 11:1. My Department however allows for a small reduction in this number and permits schools to retain a teaching post where it has a minimum of 9 pupils in the class. In the schools in question, the number of pupils dropped below this minimum. These schools therefore are no longer entitled to the teaching posts in these classes. In 2005 when the General Allocation Model was introduced, schools with additional teachers in classes for MGLD were allowed to retain the teachers for these classes. Effectively, these schools received a double allocation. The number of these special classes has decreased over the years and schools have integrated the children into age-appropriate mainstream classes. All of the other primary schools in the country who do not have classes for children with MGLD cater for these pupils from within the General Allocation Model. It is not possible to give a precise cost of the posts concerned due to the varying salary costs of the teachers in question. However, it is estimated to be in the region of €6.8m. The schools in question as requested by the Deputies are as follows:
No schools in South Tipperary, Dublin 6W and Dublin 20 are affected by my Department’s notification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inclusion
Ireland, Unit C2, The Steelworks, Foley Street, Dublin 1, Ireland.
Tel: 01 8559891 Fax: 01 8559904 Email: info@inclusionireland.ie |