Euroopan oikeusasiamies
Asiaan liittyviä asiakirjoja
Introduction
In its comments, the Commission highlights improvements in legislative provisions (e.g. the new Staff Regulations) and in accompanying measures (e.g. the revised Code of Good Practice for the Employment of People with Disabilities). But our reading of these comments leads us to the conclusion that there is a huge gap between theory and practice. The problem is that the Commission, in its comments, fails to look at what is happening in reality. This suggests either that the Commission is content to fob the Ombudsman off with theoretical claims or that monitoring mechanisms in the Commission are deficient or altogether lacking.
Recruitment and employment (including the Code of Good Practice)
Progress has been made on paper. But the fact remains that very few people with disabilities are in active employment in the Community institutions. We would encourage the Ombudsman to obtain from the Commission the results of the survey it intends to carry out in 2004 on people with disabilities employed in the Commission. It would also be useful to know exactly how this survey by Directors-General is to be carried out, as it could serve as a model of good practice for other institutions.
The Code of Good Practice contains the following: "Information and awareness-raising: The Code will be brought to the attention of all staff and training courses which deal with the question of disabilities in depth will be targeted at those most particularly involved." The Commission does not give any timetable or more precise indications as to how this will be done. Are there already courses or information campaigns set up or planned? Training for all staff who work alongside people with disabilities is required.
Although the Code of Good Practice accepts the definition of disability as including "mental" impairments, it makes no mention of the possibilities for employing persons with learning disabilities, even though there are many potentially suitable posts for such people. We believe that the Commission could look at models of good practice in the Member States which clearly show that the successful integration of people with learning disabilities is possible, provided expert professional resources are deployed.
As a major employer the Commission has a special responsibility to establish and maintain models of good practice in this area.
These comments also apply to the other Community institutions, the European Parliament in particular.
One final comment on what we see as a case of maladministration. The Code of Good Conduct was drawn up by the Commission in consultation with the other institutions. It is supposed to be an interinstitutional code. However, it contains provisions which are specific to the Commission (examples: Section 5 "Careers" contains references to the Commission's Non-discrimination Unit in DG ADMIN, and also to the Central Career Guidance Service; Section 8 "Monitoring" consists almost entirely of measures to be taken within the Commission). This means that staff in other institutions are at a disadvantage in that they have to search elsewhere - and quite possibly in vain - to identify arrangements, if any, which apply in their institution. We believe the code needs to be adapted to make it a truly interinstitutional text.
Budget line A 4301: Financial support for persons with disabilities or disabled family members, with a view to fostering their social integration
The Commission does not mention its most important instrument for the benefit of officials with a disability, or officials with disabled family members. It is set up to cover special non-medical costs (residence in a specialised institution, special education, care by a home nurse and other assistance at home, tutorial help, transport etc) and special equipment. The Commission has a special responsibility towards officials with a disability or officials with disabled family members, where they do not qualify for national provisions (see Annex 1). However, support from this line is still regarded as a sort of favour, rather than a right. The budget line providing the funds is provisional and costs are reimbursed "sous réserve des disponibilités budgétaires". Beneficiaries have to pay a substantial contribution (see Annex 2), which may well constitute discrimination by comparison with national residents benefiting from national provisions. The best-known examples are the costs of special education for disabled children (for which there is no other choice). Parents have to pay huge amounts themselves, while national residents and officials of children in the European School have nothing to pay. The same is true for other facilities such as transport costs, tutorial costs, etc., which cannot be avoided, for which officials cannot apply for national support and where their situation as an expatriate family can be particularly difficult.
European Schools
It is astonishing that the Commission can paint such a rosy picture of the situation of children with disabilities in the European Schools, when the parents concerned know that the reality is very different (see specific case in Annex 3). Such a distorted picture suggests that the Commission is very poorly informed, and/or that it has no interest in the subject. It is true that the Commission has only one vote in the Board of Governors of the Schools, but it could and should do a lot more to promote inclusive education in the Schools, especially with a view to its responsibilities as a 'substitute state' (see Annex 1), and specifically for expatriate officials who depend on Community nursery and school facilities for their children. In reality, there exist many problematic cases, at all ages, from pre-school (kindergarten) children onwards. There are officials who had to leave their job because of a lack of adequate facilities for their children with learning difficulties. However, this should not be the common 'solution' when a child does not fit into the 'normal' model. If officials have to leave their job in a Community institution for this reason, we consider it to be a case of associate discrimination against families with a disabled child.
As for children with learning difficulties in the European School, the Special Educational Needs Programme (SEN) is becoming more and more restrictive. Children with learning difficulties are often not really welcome, and qualified staff and support for integrating such children are lacking. There is no real effort (information, qualified support for teachers, taking over of best practice) to take steps to secure inclusive education, or to reflect on other approaches, i.e. parallel classes. At the same time the Commission is spending huge amounts on school fees in other schools which do so (more than € 600 000 a year). It would be cheaper and more effective to spend this money on the SEN programme and qualified staff for supporting integration in the European Schools.
"A tailor-made program for each SEN student is decided upon, (...) in a special council comprising the director, teachers, parents and usually medical specialist." The position of the parents in this council has actually been weakened in the new rules applicable to the SEN programme. While parents could previously be accompanied by a person of their choice at meetings of the council (Advisory Group is the correct term), the new rules say that they can only be accompanied by a "qualified specialist". Many parents have first-hand experience of the intimidatory climate of these meetings. This will increase if the parents are entirely on their own with a range of experts and school staff massed against them.
"Progress is measured against personal goals and not those of the class." Again, the reality is very different: children with learning disabilities may be tolerated until the age of 8 or 9 years old but there is no real personal programme, setting individual targets and defining means. Another difficulty is the failure of the Schools to consider any type of alternative curriculum which could lead to a valid qualification for those students who do not wish or who are unable to work for the baccalaureate. In short, the Schools fail in their duty to adapt themselves to the needs of the students: students are required to adapt to a rigid curriculum or else face exclusion or failure.
"There is no individual budgetary restriction for the provision of services to students with disabilities." We have ample evidence that there are indeed budgetary restrictions. In Luxembourg, at least, a rigid policy of setting a limit of 8 hours' support per week is applied: children who require more support are turned down and the parents told to look elsewhere for their education. This is clear discrimination.
The figures of the SEN budget for all the European Schools and the breakdown for each individual school for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 would indicate the budgetary trends in practice.
We remain at your disposal for any further information you may require.
For the European Parliament Disability Support GroupMarie LuijtenCoordinator
ANNEX 1From: the Administrative guide of the Commissionhttp://intracomm.cec.eu-admin.net/pers_admin/admin_guide/summary/chapter6_en.html#6_1_1
"The employer must also be a 'substitute state'
Like other international organisations the EU institutions have a special responsibility as employers, because their staff do not have a right to the social benefits in the host country that they would have in their country of origin (e.g. child allowances). Therefore the EU institutions have a dual responsibility to their staff: they must be both an employer and a 'substitute state', i.e. they must offer specific services and facilities representing, in total, a self-contained social welfare policy - geared to standards in the EU Member States - including, for instance, the payment of child allowances, health insurance and the provision of schools and kindergarten facilities. This social policy translates into salary increments for EU staff which in the Member States are paid for not by employers but by other bodies."
Italics DSG
ANNEX 2Annexes to the guidelines on "Supplementary aid for the disabled"ANNEX II : SCALE
The recipient's personal contribution is calculated by reference to the following scale. Two different scales are applied, one for the reimbursement of aids and appliances and the other for all other expenses (equipment).
SCALE AT 1. 1. 2004
ANNEX 3 - an individual case
My son, four and a half years old, has been diagnosed as suffering dysphasia (specific language impairment). He is now provisionally accepted in the first year Nursery school of the European School, in their SEN program. Dysphasia is a syndrome which makes verbal communication and comprehension very difficult, if not impossible, for the sufferer. In class these children appear bored and isolated very often if there is no intervention on the part of the teachers and assistants. They are, in fact, intelligent children who must be integrated as much and as soon as possible to take advantage of their ability to imitate the behavior of "normal" children. Our son has improved a great deal since beginning the European School, with their help, that of the the class psychologist, and the private psychologist/logopeda we have hired.
The school has conceded eight hours of individual help with the school psychologist, the maximum they are willing and/or able to offer. We have asked for more time but the administration claims that eight hours is their maximum limit. His class consists of 31 children with one professor and one assistant and is close to the limit whereby they must divide the class in half. We have asked that he be included in the Monday afternoon activities and they have only conceded that he be permitted to have lunch with his classmates and only after many meetings with the administration and the teachers.
Our son is now accepted only on a trial basis. To date we have had to attend six meetings to debate about his progress and whether they will allow him to continue; these meetings are quite tense and put us, as parents, on the defensive because the school claims that they have no resources and that the best for our son and for us is to return to our country. They apply the SEN program as a function of class size and teacher collaboration. The minutes of the SEN meetings arrive late, or not at all, and frequently do not reflect the interventions of the parents. It is, after all, the parents who have no power in these meetings (groupe conseil) if the administration and the teachers are against the child's attendance.
We can assure you that, even before accepting the job here, we contacted the then director of the Nursery section and his teacher to inform them of our son's difficulties (with diagnosis), and we were told that he would be welcome and that there was a program for children like him. It was only later, after arrival, that they began to hesitate and claim that, maybe, he was a "severe case", although a severe case of what they could never answer.
Every psychologist, every doctor (neuropediatricians, pediatricians, etc...) we have consulted says the same: he must be integrated, in an normalised environment, in his mother tongue. All of this is documented.
The truth must be told to every parent of a "different" child: i.e. the European School cannot, or will not accept any student who is even remotely out of the ordinary and this must be placed in print.
