A formal request by the Opposition party's for the Dáil to be recalled to discuss the Supreme Court ruling in the Jamie Sinnott case was rejected by the Government this evening.
|
The Government said it was opposed to a recall of the Dáil because the various Education and Disability Acts already provided sufficient services for autistic individuals. It also felt that sufficient funding was in place.
A Government spokesman told ireland.comthat the State was still studying the Supreme Court decision.
Last week, the Supreme Court upheld an appeal by the State against a High Court ruling that it was obliged to provide education to Mr Sinnott, a 23-year-old autistic man, for as long as he could benefit from it.
The Supreme Court found the State's constitutional obligation to provide for free primary education applies to children only, not adults, and ceases at the age of 18.
Today, the Fine Gael front bench made its formal request to have the Dáil recalled and also sought consideration to be given to new legislation giving specific rights to the disabled.
A party statement said the front bench was united in its view "that the public outrage at the Supreme Court judgment must become a watershed from which stronger rights for the disabled will emerge".
The party said if the Government does not respond "adequately", it will introduce a Disability Commissioner Bill to enshrine in law the rights of disabled people to services appropriate to their needs.
The Labour party spokesperson on Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan said it was important the Dáil should be seen to respond to the wave of public concern at the Sinnott ruling.
Deputy O’Sullivan said the issue was far too important to be left until afterthe summer recess.
Following the ruling last week, the Minister for Education, Mr Woods, said the State was going to improve the care of autistic children and adults.
Yesterday the Irish Autism Alliance called on the Dáil to be recalled to discuss the ruling at its first public meeting. Jamie’s mother, Mrs Kathryn Sinnott said last week’s ruling had "left Jamie and other adult children constitutionless [sic]".