Sir, - Could W.G.A. Scott ( July 17th), please enlighten me as to which article of Bunreacht na h╔ireann he refers to when he asserts that the responsibility of the State expires at the age of 18 years. I have scrutinised our Constitution for many years and have never seen such a time limit in Article 42.4.2, which clearly states that "The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiatives."
The time delay was implied by the Supreme Court and appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution so it is the court which declares that the provisions of article 42.4.2 expire once a person turns 18.
It is misleading to state that the expiry is anything but implied, however Mr Scott is happy to allege that the High Court had no right to "rewrite" the Constitution. Moreover, he seems to find the fact that the Supreme Court justices implied the expiry as perfectly democratic, where he found the implied continuation of care by the High Court undemocratic. This is an inconsistent, arbitrary and contradictory analysis.
The woolly thinking at the heart of Mr Scott's letter is highlighted by his statement that we should not allow judges to be the final arbiters but on matters of Constitutional interpretation it is the Supreme Court which decides whether an open question (like that in the Sinnott matter), goes one way or another. What's more, such a power is bestowed on them by article 34.4.5-6, with paragraph 6 stating that "the decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and conclusive"
On the decision itself, the Supreme Court could have gone either way but unfortunately chose to imply an expiry, as that is its prerogative. For Mr Scott to suggest that a referendum is necessary is misleading, all that has to be done is for our Minister for Education to introduce legislation allowing for the continued education of Irish citizens with severe disabilities beyond the age of 18. Such a fund would not be repugnant to any constitutional provision but would provide a standard of care which exceeds the basic constitutional right to education as a child. Given the announcement that the Government will bring this matter back to court for a ruling on costs I would be very surprised if this were to happen.
Mr Scott seems to think that emotion and passion has driven the criticism of the judgment. I would say that what drives it is the frustration that our Constitution, which should set out our aspirations as a nation, is being used by the Government as a transparent screen behind which it refuses to pay for the basic dignity of one of its citizens. - Yours, etc.,
Colm Linnane, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.