Ms Sarah Lennon:

I will start with Deputy Paul Murphy's question on why we have infantilised people with intellectual disabilities. We have a legacy of institutionalisation and segregation in this country. That persists for people with intellectual disability today. A great number of residential services, educational services and post-educational services are segregated from the mainstream. That creates very significant othering for people with intellectual disability. The criminal law from 1993 was the law that decriminalised homosexuality. At the same time, it created an offence of sex with a mentally impaired person. The definition of "mentally impaired person" was such that pretty much everyone with an intellectual disability and a large number of people with mental illness fell within it. It was an offence for someone in this category to have sex unless married. This was 1993. Thankfully, that law was repealed in the past 12 months. We are living with the legacy, however, and we are playing catch-up. There are other ways in which people have been othered but the effect on those with an intellectual disability has been very significant.

With regard to the questions Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and Senator Ruane were asking on age appropriateness and special schools, approximately one in five people with an intellectual disability will go through a special school system, approximately four out of five will go through second level and a very small number will proceed to third level. There is no specific relationships and sex education programme for people with an intellectual disability but there are curriculum guides. This is a matter that the NCCA can address.

The curriculum guide for primary schools, which includes the special schools, has a very heavy focus on personal care skills and on relationships that do not continue on to sexuality itself. At post-primary level, the curriculum guide is divided into sections covering mild, moderate and severe to profound intellectual disability levels rather than considering the individual learning styles of pupils or proposing needs analysis. With regard to mild intellectual disability, the syllabus module, which covers friendship, relationships and sexuality, is called "You've Got a Friend". We are already in circumstances in which we are still not acknowledging that those concerned, even those with a mild intellectual disability, should have a sexuality. It is not appropriate, respectful or realistic to think people with an intellectual disability would not have physical desires or experience arousal, regardless of intellectual functioning. We know from our advocacy work that if this is not recognised and if the correct tools are not used, it leads to what we call either challenging or inappropriate behaviours down the line. That is a very significant challenge.

Inclusion Ireland would always favour a universal approach whereby people should take their place in the mainstream with resources that are accessible to them. While we continue with a special education system and special schools, we cannot afford not to take cognisance of the fact that there are people in primary education who are, in effect, adults. We need to develop curriculum guidelines that take account of people's different needs, stages and processes.

With regard to ethos, there is a very significant impact on service delivery across the board in both education and, although it is probably outside the remit of this committee, disability services. Inclusion Ireland was contacted by many disability services, including former or current religious orders, that have a genuine fear resulting in a form of paralysis among people who want to develop relationships and sexual education for people who have left the school system, who might never have received it or who received deeply inadequate and in some cases inappropriate sexual education.

Parental involvement, which has arisen a few times, is crucial. Research shows that many people working in schools or disability services are afraid of reprisals from parents. That fear might be genuine or imagined but, nonetheless, it is essential that parents be brought on the journey with young people with an intellectual disability. There is a significant fear in that anyone who is a parent does not want to consider his son or daughter growing up and his or her blossoming sexuality but when we deny people with an intellectual disability access to the information they require, we create vulnerability. People are not inherently vulnerable; we make them vulnerable by denying them the information they need to enjoy intimacy and to protect themselves. Protection is a significant issue, as I stated in my presentation. People with an intellectual disability are far more likely to be sexually abused than their non-disabled peers. That should not be seen as an excuse to deny people information and education. It is quite the opposite because we are only creating vulnerability when we deny people that information.