Ms Lynn Fitzpatrick:

I thank the Senator for acknowledging my being here for Bernard. To answer her question as to how we can look after everyone, that is what I advocate for. I advocate that there should be a full range of choices to suit every individual person. I am not trying to remove rights from anyone. I struggle with the fact that when this policy started there were 1,200 or so young people with disabilities in nursing homes who were identified in 2007 and it was said they were "outside the scope". My brother is so happy where he is yet he was prioritised to be moved out ahead of some people who may want to go. There should be a full range of options. I read a thematic study on the UN convention and it said equal basis means the right to accept or reject all kinds of living situations and all kinds of care, including institutional care. I do not consider that that is what my brother has. The reality is that the people I am here for today - and I wish there were a way I could bring committee members down to meet them and see for themselves - have nothing in common with the majority of people with disabilities. Of course, community living is right for the majority of people with disabilities because they have more in common with regular, ordinary - to use the policy terms - communities than they do with the people in St. Mary of the Angels, but the fact is that they exist. In 2019, 23 people were either admitted or readmitted into congregated settings. Some 82% of them had high or intensive support needs. As of January 2020, 1,953 people remained in congregated settings. That number has since increased because of admissions. Some 76% of them have a high or intensive level of support needs. Why are we pushing people out of these situations and into communities when it is well documented - if members listen to the radio, they will hear families say it every day - that they do not have the facilities to help them?

I have given a lot of time listening to everybody. Two things keep coming up: "nothing about us without us" and paternalism. I want to talk about how the policy has treated Bubo in this regard. As for "nothing about us without us", the working group on congregated settings came together in 2007, the policy was published in 2011 and then launched as a strategy in 2012. My family and Bubo did not know about the policy until September 2016. We found out about it because my mother received a phone call from one of the managers in Bubo's home out of the clear blue sky that summer telling her that his name was on a list for a state-of-the-art house in Milltown. We ended up having to try to dig and find out what was going on and to educate ourselves about this policy, which took us time. "Nothing about us without us"? Bubo's family and all the families in St. Mary of the Angels did not know about this policy, but that is not the point. Paternalism has been talked about as well. Bubo cannot speak for himself, unfortunately. I wish he could. I wish he could be here instead of me. However, there are people in St. Mary of the Angels who can speak for themselves, who have sat in rooms with disability advocates and who have told them they want to stay where they are. They have said, "I love my home", "This is my home" and "I do not want to move". What is more paternalistic than a national policy that tells them, "We know what is best for you, and you will be way better off in the community"? On what planet will Bubo be better off having the same access to services and facilities I have when he needs hydrotherapy and supports that are not available anywhere else? He needs a team of specialists around the clock. The people I am talking about have very high care needs. I just wish there were a way I could get that across.

We need to be clear that there is a difference between a right and an obligation. I did not see the committee meeting last week but I know that the Ombudsman said we do not know whether people in nursing homes want to be there unless we ask them. If they want to be there, it is perfectly fine, but why is it not perfectly fine for my brother?

A reference was made to ten people in a single living unit. There are 63 adults in St. Mary of the Angels. There are 11 houses and chalets. There are no more than ten people in any single living unit on that campus of 30 acres. There is loads of development and loads of people who want to support it. We have been told we cannot develop on the land because of this policy and that the land cannot be developed because everyone has to move out. I feel there is a target on the back of St. Mary of the Angels because the policy says that to fund decongregation, these assets need to be sold off; by the way, these assets were donated to people like my brother by a local Kerry family and built from the ground up by the people of Kerry, so nobody has a right to sell them. I am sorry. I do not mean to be so heated, but it has been very difficult for me to sit here and listen to some of what has been said today. How can someone claim to be an advocate and to care about social justice and then be okay with people being forced - evicted - cruelly from their homes? I have the evidence of what has happened internationally, in Australia and America, when this same line of thought was followed. I can send that evidence on to the committee after the meeting. The data is there. To correct another figure from earlier, 942 people had been moved out at the start of 2020, not 600 or whatever Deputy Cairns said. That is not the figure. A total of 278 have been readmitted.