Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming before the committee. Over almost two years the committee has heard how difficult it is for somebody with a disability to navigate Irish society. I see very positive moves happening and the Minister has provided a very comprehensive report today, which I value. Ensuring that someone has an experience that is not just about education but also the outcomes is important. We are not providing access to education as an end in itself; we are providing it as insurance towards a life and for every individual to live his or her best life as every person in Ireland has an entitlement and right to do.

When I hear the phrase "universal design", I think it is fantastic because we need to equip colleges with that. However, I am interested in the mechanism that will flow from in terms of the real life lived experience of the students who enter into that environment and how they give feedback. How will their involvement in the effectiveness of that be harnessed and facilitated?

This might be appallingly cynical on my part but my fear is tokenism, that we put in provisions but they do not make an impact for the people for whom they are intended. We want to make sure the provision do make an impact for these people. We have the experience of people who are a little further on in education, who may be in second and third year, and there are those in first year who do not have any comparisons to make. It is important to harness that. I would be interested to hear how that will be done.

The next issue is that disability costs. It disproportionately costs families supporting a person with a disability at the level of going into college. That burden is definitely on parents and families around them. When we talk about funding, we talk about PATH 4 funding, is there any cross-departmental discussion on that kind of support? Do we involve the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth? Has that Department an input into it? Are there officials from the Department of Social Protection who join up and discuss? What about the Department of Health, is that on board? There is also the Minister’s own Department. Transport has been one of the inhibitors to engagement in life, getting outside the house and not being trapped in the house. That is a very important feature.

I am a little wary about the part time option. I welcome it, and have seen the benefit in people I know who I have been supporting over the past couple of years. However, I am also wary of colleges cutting corners in the provision of part-time courses. I already know of fees that have gone up while the engagement with students has gone down because it is all online now. Are we monitoring that?

Most of my questions are on the idea of enforcement, accountability and ensuring it actually is effective and has an effective outcome. My last point is around apprenticeships. They are really welcome. Already two years in when it comes to literacy and apprenticeships, the Minister has really made a difference. The apprenticeships to my mind are aligned with people with disabilities who have had the experience of community employment schemes and getting access to the workplace through those. I appreciate there is an enormous difference but it is about process. It is the process of occupying someone for a number of years. Participants gain great skills and confidence but have no permanent outcome from that. Often they are on a treadmill where they might get an extension or be renewed repeatedly for an extra year but there is no permanent job at the end of it. How are we going to incentivise employers to ensure there are permanent jobs at the end of an apprentice scheme? When the funding dries up for the individual because he or she has reached a certain point, does the engagement of the individual cease? That comes back to my own theme which is that this has to be a lifelong, sustainable process to ensure the person is living his or her best life.