Government's shallow, shameful victory

`We don't need a constitutional amendment," said Mr Seamus Greene of the National Parents' and Siblings' Alliance on hearing …

`We don't need a constitutional amendment," said Mr Seamus Greene of the National Parents' and Siblings' Alliance on hearing the Supreme Court's decision in the Jamie Sinnott case. "We need a government."

Indeed, we do. One which has the gumption to share our resources with those who need them most. Not one which scuttles to the Supreme Court in search of constitutional cover, for what Ms Frances Fitzgerald of Fine Gael called its shallow and shameful victory.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court upheld an appeal by the State against a High Court decision that Jamie Sinnott, who suffers from autism, was entitled to a State education for as long as it was of benefit to him.

Six of the seven judges in the Supreme Court went straight to the constitutional heart of the matter and decided that entitlement - and benefit - stopped when Mr Sinnott reached 18 and ceased to be a child. He is now 23. Their interpretation was shared by Dr Michael Woods, who said: "This is about primary education. Primary education, as people understand it, is given in primary schools by primary teachers."

READ MORE

And that, as far as he's concerned, settles the matter. It establishes that legal responsibility for the education of Jamie Sinnott ended when he was 18 and ceased to be a child. And the same applies to the 600 others who suffer from autism in this State.

"As Minister," said Dr Woods, "I had the obligation of seeking clarity".

Other obligations fall to other Departments: that of caring to the Department of Health; that of statutory protection to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; but, above all, that of funding to the Department of Finance.

For, as Mrs Kathryn Sinnott, Jamie's mother, told Carol Coulter of The Irish Times: "This case was about more than disability. It was about our relation to the State. It was based on the State's willingness to spend money."

Outside the Four Courts she said: "This was a bad day for disabled people. But I'm not going to let Jamie's education stop here. And I'm not going to stop fighting for other people. The State has made promises. It has won today on the strength of those promises. And I'm going to see that it keeps them."

She's right on all counts. I doubt if Dr Michael Woods or Mr Micheal Martin would have appealed to the Supreme Court against Mr Justice Barr's humane and reasonable High Court judgment that Jamie Sinnott should be educated as long as he could benefit from education.

But, if that judgment stood, the other 600 might expect to be educated, too. And might qualify if the Sinnott precedent were followed. As worried lawyers and officers of the Department of Finance mutter to each other: an appalling vista.

You won't hear much in these quarters about the Government's moral responsibility to the Sinnotts or to the others who suffer from autism and their families.

The Department of Finance, especially under present management, doesn't have a section which specialises in moral responsibility. Which is why Mr Seamus Greene was close enough when he said: "We don't need a constitutional amendment. What we need is a government."

Not a Government which fearfully protects the apparatus of one Department, or the Government as a whole, from the citizens: remember the sacrifice of Brigid McCole . What is needed is a Government for which the interests of the citizens come first. And the interests of vulnerable minorities are protected at all costs.

Ms Frances Fitzgerald of Fine Gael called for a Cabinet meeting devoted exclusively to the Sinnott case. Dr Garret Fitzgerald, of Waterford Regional Hospital, says our health authorities do not respond to anything but a crisis.

The Labour Party, whose policy document on healthcare is both the most detailed and most provocative, proposes referendums to change the Constitution in two ways, equality before the law and socioeconomic rights. The terms have been drafted but the Dail has found time for only one brief debate. As for the fine report on the Constitution which was produced by the Whitaker committee, it's still being considered by a committee of snails.

Meanwhile, the Government is bogged down in discussions on Northern Ireland and at odds with its partners in the European Union.

It set out to break State monopolies, whether they needed to be broken or not, and ended up offering deals at street corners to business monopolies.

The Government's boasts of reliance on private enterprise are equalled by the celebrations of our returning absentee landlords to help themselves under a compliant tax system that will keep the party going in the Caribbean, Monaco or Liechtenstein.

Of course, the current attacks on our public services - health, education, transport, energy or media - are ideological. But when the election is finally called, the issues may challenge more than those on the left.

Local interests, as we've seen, can damage the biggest parties, never mind those that have been heedless enough to display their incompetence and indifference.

dwalsh@irish-times.ie