Ms Lucianne Bird:

I want to comment on the previous mention of pace. It is really important that there is flexibility in the timelines, the duration and the way people get the opportunity to learn. We describe the NLN as classrooms within a classroom so that every person learns in his or her own way at his or her own pace. Another point is continuous intake and being able to join a programme when you are ready to do so. I was taken by Ms Lawless’ comments earlier on and a lot of people need to be able to join when they are ready to do so, which is a feature of the service we provide. Flexible and student-centric approaches to learning, breaking things down and making the supports available at the right time and in the right place in the person’s life are all critically important. Needs are diverse and responses have to be diverse to be able to meet those needs.

Flexibility of funding is critical and that has come up a number of times. There are rigid criteria set around funding at further educational level, whether that is the progression to HSE-funded services or the specialist vocational training provided within the FET sector at the moment, there are rigid criteria around allocation, utilisation and funding models that do not really allow enough flexibility to be built into the system and the service. That is something that can be looked at. We have raised it with the funders and we are in discussions with them. When some changes are brought about there will be opportunities for change, innovation and new ways of developing services to be discussed and put on the table.

The idea of the educational plan is what we were speaking to in the transitional comments Mr. McGinn made at the beginning. People should have a pathway through the education system, from second level into further education and training, FET. There should also be combined funding models that would combine care and HSE-type supports with educational supports funded through the FET sector. It is very important at that level, as is having a plan to go through that meets the needs of a very diverse population of people. It is not all about one group of people. We deal with people with intellectual, physical and sensorial disabilities. We deal with a very large number of young people who have high anxiety levels and who are not able to function socially in their communities. We deal increasingly with people with autism. This needs, therefore, a broad and flexible range of responses to be able to ensure every young person with a disability or with a significant health condition has access to further education and training and, through that, can build his or her pathway to higher education.

The comments about supports in higher education that Ms Lawless has made are pertinent. Our support services in higher education are supplementing gaps in existing provision. These can be, could be and, I am sure, will be grown to be a lot stronger. However, they really are highlighting the gaps in services that exist. I would emphasise the points that have been made on the basis of my experience. People need an awful lot of support to know how to use the systems, to get to the systems and to navigate their way through the systems. They are incredibly difficult. They are incredibly challenging. People are exhausted. I would say service providers are exhausted trying to navigate the system.

My appeal would be for flexibility in the funding. Personalised funding is a slightly different concept from personalised budgets and I would support both of them. We need to speak about diversity of provision. We have very diverse needs and we therefore need diversity of provision. Mainstream and inclusive does not negate the need for specialist. It is not one versus the other. Both are needed in a twin-track model, which is recommended by the UN, and this is the way forward for a progressive society. Ms Prendeville’s comments about progressive realisation is very pertinent. There is a long way to go and there is a huge amount of capacity to be built within the system. There are elements within the system that are powerful, strong and effective. Looking at how that existing capacity within the system can be further utilised and maximised is important. For instance, specialist training provision is part of the FET system but it is never promoted and it is never branded. It is actually one of the most difficult areas on which to find out information at the moment. We are told in NLN that we are one of the best kept secrets in Ireland. That should not be the case. The information and the knowledge should be there. People should be able to access the services much more easily and to navigate their way through the systems much more easily.

Those are my comments. I am very heartened by the debate and by the range of comments. Recognising that diverse responses are required is critically important.