Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses. I have so many questions so I will try to bundle them. In the previous Oireachtas, I was a member of the Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands. We talked about some of the gaps and problems in the social protection system in our committee's pre-budget submission. More have emerged from today's testimony. We welcome those insights from the witnesses.

On the key areas, we spoke about the impact of the means testing of the disability payment and the need to move away from it. One thing we have pushed for is the long-overdue cost of disability report. We have been waiting for it but we know what it is going to tell us. It will tell us that there is a huge cost associated with disability that is additional to the starting point of the costs of living a full life and of being able to participate in society in all the ways that everybody should be able to participate. Disabled people are faced with that additional cost burden. The removal of the means test would be the preferred option.

Another option, or a stepping stone in that direction, would be the idea of a larger income disregard which would match the costs of disability. That would be a start and it is one of the tools available. That is a key aspect. The wording or framing of the blind pension and other payments is often disempowering. It is determining that because people have these needs, they must stay in this space. It almost signals to people to stay out of society.

I am interested in comments the witnesses might have on the intersection of those payments and the actual pension age. One of the other issues we have found with older people with a disability is that once they get to retirement age, their disability and associated needs can become invisible. In a previous life, long ago now, I was part of the Older and Bolder organisation and used to work on creativity in later life. This is a topic I feel passionate about. There should at least be an acknowledgement of the need for the supports that are disappearing when people reach pension age.

I am interested in this broad area, and the measure that is going to come centre stage is the proposed new universal basic income for artists, which is about to be piloted. What kinds of things should be looking out for? Should we be trying to ensure a universal basic income does not impact on disability payments? Should it focus on addressing one of the areas of intersection, namely, that artists tend to get money in a clump, if the witnesses know what I mean? Artists may have a low income for a time and then receive a lump sum from a bursary or other funding. I ask for comment on the intersection of that with means testing for the disability payment? What we have now is a pilot and we want to ensure it works for artists who have a disability, as well as other artists.

We know there has been a change regarding studying for doctorates. Is it DADA's view that there should be a similar exclusion of public commissions and awards and awards from the Arts Council? Much like with PhDs, these awards allow people to develop and further their work and careers. That is a clear ask the committee could push for.

I ask the witnesses to comment on the individualisation of social protection payments. It is a major issue in respect of gender equality and financial independence. It is important that people's partners should not be included in means tests. People should be individually assessed.

I was interested as well in what Mr. Kerr said about governance and ownership. We have this battle to try to ensure that the public sector duty in respect of equality and human rights is being delivered upon. There is another level where when the State is procuring services these services should follow through on the public duty towards equality and human rights. A power dynamic is at work here. If the buildings, premises and facilities benefiting from capital infrastructure investment are owned by private or voluntary bodies, it can sometimes be harder to press for such requirements and for the same standards to be met. I ask Mr. Kerr to comment on that issue of governance and ownership.

It is something that is very much to the fore at present with regard to the national maternity hospital. I am very interested in that question and I believe those are issues that we will have to examine as part of that seismic change to ensure there is accountability and that citizens and residents with a disability are centre stage.

With regard to the advocacy support service, I very interested in what was said about the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act. We have had a great deal of debate on that and on decision support services. The view the committee has had is that these are very important, but they should not cause a delay in the implementation of the optional protocol. Do the witnesses have any comments or thoughts on that? These are often presented as something we have to work on and that this is the reason we cannot get the optional protocol in place, but our sense is that the optional protocol will certainly add to the urgency of the delivery of the assisted decision-making supports.

I would appreciate hearing anything the witnesses have to say specifically on congregated settings and the discretion and space for cultural, political and social participation. I am still struck by my memory of visiting a residential care home when I was working with Older and Bolder. The nearby town was holding a big festival and everybody was out and wearing pink. I believe it was in aid of breast cancer. A huge event was taking place but there was no visibility of that in the residential care centre. There was no expectation that this community event would involve the people from the residential care centre or that they would be participants, contributors or performers at the events. That really struck me and I found it quite chilling.