Senator Bacik asks Leader for Debate on Education, and Debate on Symphysiotomy
22 June 2011
Order of Business
22nd June 2011
Senator Ivana Bacik: Yesterday, Senator Norris raised the case of the Magdalene laundries. Perhaps we can have a debate in this House on the initial report, which is to be made to Cabinet by the interdepartmental committee announced by the Government. Senator Norris and others have raised ongoing issues that have come to light in respect of the Magdalene laundries. I refer to the article by Mary Raftery in The Irish Times of two days ago, which outlined the ways in which health and safety and factories legislation should have applied to these laundries. A further article by Patsy McGarry in The Irish Times today outlined that many Departments used the services of the laundries, which were able to undercut other laundry services because they were paying no wages to the incarcerated women. We need to have a debate on this in the Seanad as soon as the interdepartmental committee has made its report. I welcome the announcement of the interdepartmental committee to investigate the facts. We must keep oversight of this within the Legislature, as well as having the Government call the independent committee.
I ask the Leader for a debate on education. Others called for a debate on the allocation of special needs assistants. In response, the Leader said that the Department of Education and Skills has given a clear and welcome indication that existing levels of special needs assistants in special schools will be maintained in order to protect and assist the most vulnerable children. The Department will ensure all schools that enrol children with significant care needs will have special needs assistant support allocated to the school. However, there is concern about a reduction in the number of special needs assistants. The previous Government decided to cap the special needs assistant posts in 2010.
… In fairness, we need a debate on this to ensure all children who require special needs assistants receive the service. The context of this must be understood. If we call on the Minister for Education and Skills to attend the Chamber for a debate on special needs assistants, we should also have him discuss the severe cuts to the visiting teacher service for Travellers and the resource teacher allocation for Travellers. There has been much less publicity about that. I have been contacted by someone who works with the visiting teacher service for Travellers and many of us have been contacted by those concerned about the damage this will do to the inclusion of Traveller children in the education system. An EU funded report from 2008 refers to the visiting teacher service for Travellers in Ireland as being successful in increasing the participation of Traveller children. The reaction was positive and the Department of Education and Skills, in its circular, acknowledged that few initiatives in the area of Traveller education have been as successful as the appointment of visiting teachers who liaise between travelling families, schools and other agencies. We need a debate on that and whether the cut is necessary. It seems to have far too serious an impact on the education and inclusion of Traveller children.
I support the call by Senator Reilly for a debate on symphysiotomy with the Minister for Health. An important report was published on that appalling practice this week.