Mr. James Cawley:

There has been much said around this already so I just want to raise three key areas that would cover it, or even the standardisation of this. First, we need a standard assessment of need across all CHO areas. Currently, for example, your application can be assessed by a public health nurse or an occupational therapist. They could be rooted in the medical model of disability and only believe in a care approach to people coming through their doors. By contrast, people who apply for a personal assistance service knowingly do so for assistance and not care. We need to make that difference between care and assistance distinct and change from the medical model of disability to the social model. These applications go to the CHO area and within that to what are know as community discussion forums or clearing house committees. Bear in mind that if I send in my application, I am not there. I repeat "nothing about us without us". I should be there and I should be consulted. Let us assume it is all non-disabled people sitting around a table talking about disabled people's needs and rights.

Deputy Wynne talked about the social requirements and needs we have. Currently, disabled people talk about their personal care needs and priority one. However, what about our social needs? What about what when I am working all week and want to go out for a pint on a Friday evening? We are human beings. We should be able to decide when and where we go. That came across very strongly in a consultation ILMI did over February and March when we were, as we all know, reporting back as a country on the UNCRPD. Particularly with reference to Article 7, when we engaged with young people they said their spontaneity is always impacted. When they are 16, 17 and 18 years of age they want to do what their non-disabled peers do. That is a really strong point we need to talk about. To return briefly to the example of the clearing house committee, we would not go to a men's shed and ask to consult on women's issues and that is something lots of people have said, colleagues included. We need therefore to start, under Article 4.3 of the UNCRPD, to engage with disabled people. We must engage with the representative organisations for disabled persons led by and for disabled people.

The Deputy asked did we know anybody in relation to the personalised budgets. We did a consultation with people in May. There was a huge amount of participation. People were frustrated about the lack of contact, of clarity and of a clear sense of a plan for how the demonstrator projects would be delivered. For example, many people had signed up in September 2019 and have been sent emails and calls had been made and not returned. Some people just want to know what the story is with this going forward. The lack of communication impacts then on their choice, their supports and their pathway to work towards the personalised budgets. We recommend full details and clear timelines for these models must be delivered. We need a clear commitment from the HSE, the Department of Health and of course the Department for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which is a mouthful, on the demonstration models as a pathway to personalised budgets for disabled people.

In 2019, a motion brought before the Dáil by Deputy Pringle was unanimously agreed. It was a historic debate. Following on from that, to try to link the local level to the national level and vice versa, we asked disabled people who use personal assistance services at a local level to engage with their elected representatives and local authorities to have a motion on a right to a personal assistance service passed. That work is ongoing. In light of Covid-19, four or five local authorities have not yet passed that motion. We are working to get that done. When done, we would like to progress the motion through both Houses of the Oireachtas to keep the issue live. I hope I have answered the questions put to me.