Pressure grows for recall of Dail to debate Sinnott case

The Government is facing sustained pressure to recall the Dail to debate the implications of the Jamie Sinnott Supreme Court judgment, following the decision of two pro-Government independent TDs to back the campaign.

Yesterday, Fine Gael and Labour issued separate demands for the Dail to interrupt its summer recess to respond to "the wave of public concern" about the implications of the court's ruling.

Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously found that the State does not have an obligation to provide a primary education beyond the age of 18 to disabled people.

Meanwhile, the Chief State Solicitor, Mr David J. O'Hagan, yesterday wrote to the solicitor representing 23-year-old Mr Sinnott and his mother, Kathryn, to guarantee that the State would pay all of the legal costs.

Significantly, Wicklow Independent TD, Ms Mildred Fox, supports the recall demands, while the Donegal North-East Independent TD, Mr Harry Blaney, is of the same mind.

"I would support the desire that we should come back and discuss the whole case," said Ms Fox, who, along with Mr Blaney, the Kerry South TD, Mr Jackie Healy-Rae, and Donegal South-West TD, Mr Tom Gildea, has supported the Government since 1997.

However, Mr Healy-Rae opposed the recall. The Minister for Education, Dr Woods, he said, has not turned down "a single request" from him for more school special assistants and resource teachers.

So far, the Government is stoutly opposed to a recall and to demands for legislation or a constitutional amendment to enshrine the rights of disabled people to life-long education.

A Government spokesman insisted there was already sufficient legislation to cater for their needs, including various Education Acts and Disability Acts.

"While we recognise that there is a long way to go and that we are all on a learning curve, we have begun. And we intend to press forward," said the spokesman.

However, opponents argue that existing legislation leaves the provision of services at the Government's discretion and does not give the disabled a legal or constitutional entitlement to them.

The Fine Gael frontbench demanded "an urgent Dail debate" on the judgment's consequences and to consider new legislation, including the appointment of a disability commissioner.

Traditionally part of the political calendar, demands for recalls have been granted rarely.

But, the Government could find it difficult to avoid one now if Ms Fox and Mr Blaney hold firm, especially if Mr Gildea - who could not be contacted yesterday - joins them.

In his letter to Ms Sinnott's solicitor, Mr Ernest Cantillon, the Chief State Solicitor confirmed the State would pay all of the Sinnotts' legal costs from the High Court and Supreme Court cases.

Last Thursday, an official initially cast doubt on whether it would do so during a telephone conversation with Mr Cantillon.

Yesterday, Mr O'Hagan wrote that there had then been "an apprehension" in his office that last week's Supreme Court order "might have overruled or varied the extant High Court order".

Following "further consideration", he said the State's "clear and unambiguous agreement" to pay all costs in both cases was not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.