Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the presenters for speaking and identifying so many overlapping issues. I know we have touched on some of them before. I was struck by a few patterns. The witnesses might elaborate a little on one or two of them. I refer to the transition points and what seems to happen to people around transition points. There is a question of people who may be coming out of education and then regarded that they are handing over to the HSE. There are transitions of people coming out of education, whether or not they will be linking with the Department of Social Protection and whether or not that compromises their relationship with the HSE and the health services or supports.

I am also interested in those who are not necessarily coming straight out of education, but who are coming back as adults and seeking to access education at a later stage, as with Dr. McCarthy. It is something we have looked at a lot in the joint committee on social protection around whether people are really being offered the full suite of potential options for them. It is an issue for persons who are on jobseeker's allowance but also for those who are on disability allowance because there has been a real concern on whether that full range of options is really there. I know there is the employability initiative but it is not necessarily simply for a small cohort who may already be very highly educated or skilled, but for those who are now wishing to start on a path of education or training. It would be very good to think about how we can make that transition better and how we can ensure there are more overlapping supports.

I was really struck by words that came from both Inclusion Ireland and from the Disability Federation of Ireland. The words "risk" and "fear" and the idea that people who have a disability and are choosing and making constructive choices about their lives should have this gratuitous risk or fear as well as whatever different measures they have to put in place in managing their disability, a fear that if they take a step on a path there may be a negative consequence. That was very striking and concerning. It should not feel like a risk to try for full-time employment. There should not be a fear that one might lose one's medical card. That is something we need to look at and address and ensure that instead of risk, people are feeling support and encouragement, even when it may roll back.

When I mention transitions I am referring to when people try something and it does not work out. We have talked about the lack of quality part-time employment and employment supports being a huge issue for many with caring responsibilities but I imagine that for those with partial capacity it is an issue as well. Maybe the witnesses could comment on that question of quality part-time educational and employment options and how we can ensure that people are allowed to try and roll back without feeling they have to go right back to the start in terms of paperwork and bureaucracy.

I was very struck by the question of pilots. We have seen it across the board and it may be useful. I do not want to pre-empt our work but I want to ask for a list of the pilots and why they were not scaled up because there have been so many brilliant good practices and we see it again and again. For example, on the European Youth Guarantee, in a separate area, we see great projects and ideas tested out. Then something like JobPath is seen which rolls out on a huge scale very quickly. It is something we need to examine and get a stronger reporting on where the scalability and the plan is and show that there is a commitment, not just to having examples but to having a wide experience that is positive.

I refer to reasonable accommodation which did not get mentioned. I would like to get the witnesses thoughts on how we can frame the sense of what the understanding of what reasonable accommodation for employers and employees is and ensure that it is put in a constructive way in that segway between education and employment. I refer to the competing bureaucracies. Something that came up in a previous hearing of the joint committee on social protection was people who say they had medical appointments which they could not miss but they also had to sign in with the Department of social protection which they could not miss and it was jeopardising it. I know some people with disabilities who have a real dilemma where they are sometimes saying they will go on jobseeker's allowance even though they have a disability because they want to make sure they are given the opportunities. I mention the question of having to show availability for work yet also having to maintain a health schedule. Is there something we could do around that question of competing appointments? It could be five o'clock on a Tuesday and people might have to be in two different places.

I was glad to see the witnesses mention the public duty, equality and human rights. It is really important. I would like to hear the witnesses sense of how it has been taken on board, how it could be strengthened and how we could press for it. I mention the optional protocol in terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I was really struck by the fact that every person is different. In a way, the optional protocol is what allows different people, with different experiences of disability to send a signal on how the situation can change.

I refer to the mobility grant and community life, if the witnesses could comment on that. This is maybe the missing piece here because often participation in community life is what leads to employment and maintains health. I mention personal discretion around the mobility grant and the personal budget, what it means for community life and how that links back into employment in the long term.