Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters Opening Statement by the Ombudsman for Children’s Office

Wednesday, 4 March 2026

Thank you to the Chairperson and the Committee for inviting the Ombudsman for Children’s Office to provide our observations on the General Scheme of the Disability (Amendment) Bill 2025.

Established in 2004, the OCO is an independent and statutory human rights body with two core functions:

• to promote and protect the rights and welfare of all children; and
• to examine and investigate complaints made by or for children about the administrative actions of public bodies.

The OCO has long advocated for a child-centred, rights-based approach to disability law, grounded in a holistic and multidisciplinary understanding of children’s development and needs. Every child with a disability in Ireland has the right, under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to the highest level of health and education to fulfil their potential. Their rights to equality and non-discrimination, accessibility, and effective participation and inclusion are further reinforced under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

In 2020, we published Unmet Needs: A report on the challenges faced by children who require an assessment of their needs. Six years later, we are here today reiterating many of the recommendations in that report.

Daily we receive complaints from distraught parents whose children have been on a waiting list for years to access an assessment of need for their child. Many have then found that, once their child is assessed, they struggle to get any or all of the services recommended to help their child talk, move, learn and grow. Change is urgently needed, and any reforms must ensure children’s timely access to services.

The General Scheme introduces targeted amendments intended to clarify and streamline elements of the Assessment of Need (AON) process. The Disability Act provides an assessment of the need for services, rather than an assessment of the child’s holistic health and development needs. In this context, we acknowledge that that the General Scheme is a shift in focus toward needs and away from overly resource-intensive diagnostic reporting, which is welcome.

However, it does not address the broader structural reforms identified in our 2020 report. Specifically, the Scheme does not:

• provide for the insertion of guiding principles to inform interpretation and implementation of the Disability Act 2005
• amend the statutory definition of disability in Section 2 to make it rights-based and child-centred
• embed an explicit best interest, holistic and multidisciplinary approach to assessment under Section 7
• strengthen enforcement mechanisms, including by expanding the remedial powers of the Disability Appeals Officer under Section 18.

This is potentially a missed opportunity for rights alignment, statutory coherence and effective accountability within the framework of the 2005 Act.

Legislative amendments designed to reduce burdens on resources must not erode children’s statutory rights, including the right to a comprehensive assessment process that can lawfully and effectively identify the child’s needs and the services required.

I turn now to our comments on specific Heads of the Scheme.

Head 3 introduces an initial determination of disability, prior to an assessment of need. The practical effect of this requires close scrutiny. In the OCO’s view, a determination must involve a holistic appraisal of the child’s lived experience, including the barriers that impede participation and the supports that may remove them.

The replacement of “disability” with “restriction” does align with human rights approaches to disability but it sidelines the broader question about the definition of disability in law.

Head 4 proposes to postpone mandatory engagement with the education sector until after a disability determination is made. We are concerned that such a strict sequencing approach could lead to inconsistent access to educational expertise at the disability determination stage, where formal NCSE involvement is deferred until after disability determination.

This Head also amends the assessment report to include a statement of the “significant difficulty in communication, learning or mobility or the significantly disordered cognitive processes” giving rise to the need for services, rather than a statement of the nature and extent of the disability.

This is potentially one of the most consequential aspects of the General Scheme. We are concerned that this amendment may be perceived (and potentially used) as a legislative route to lowering the “gold standard” of statutory AON content in response to resource constraints, rather than as a child-centred, rights-based reform grounded in an inclusive, holistic needs assessment model.

Head 6 permits the Minister to require the HSE to issue guidelines providing practical guidance on the assessment process. We recognise that this has the potential to improve consistency and legal compliance nationally. However, guidelines cannot substitute for statutory rights, and they must have robust statutory underpinning and oversight.

This Head also enables the Minister to make regulations relating to the closure of applications. While there may be circumstances where it becomes impracticable to progress an application, any new closure power must include children’s rights safeguards, including clear notice requirements, child-appropriate and family friendly communication, and an appeals mechanism

Head 7 relates to transitional provisions. These can have significant practical effects for children who have been waiting long periods for assessment. It is essential that transitional arrangements are assessed through a child rights lens.

Further to these observations, we emphasise that reform of the 2005 Act cannot be considered in isolation from a wider review of the Disability Act, education legislation and other access pathways. One of the major drivers of pressure on the AON system has been the non-commencement of core EPSEN provisions, which means that

families may rely on the AON process to access educational assessments and supports.

In this respect, I draw the Committee’s attention to our written submission, which provides an analysis of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 and the Autism Assessment and Intervention Pathway Protocol.

We also recommend that consideration be given to the views of children in the design of key policies and strategies affecting them.

Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.

• 4 March 2026
• Type: Statement
• Topic: Disability, Education, Health