Professor Malcolm MacLachlan:

I thank the Deputy for the questions. I will start with the last point. There is particular work from Maynooth University that is being led by my colleague, Dr. Katriona O'Sullivan, and was recently published in the journal Nature. In that article, we are arguing that the provision of assistive technology and digital technology has to take into account, first, the physical provision of those, but also the governance around those, in particular the potential for exploitation of people and the fact many of the algorithms which are developed around digital technologies are, if we like, normed on the average person in the population, whereas with digital technologies and assistive technologies we often want to promote the inclusion of those people more on the margins. For instance, if we leave the development of these technologies solely in commercial hands, then they obviously go for the bulk in terms of where they can make the money, whereas if there was a much stronger social consciousness involved in it, for instance, with national legislation, we could require appropriate sampling and sourcing of people to feed into algorithms so they are appropriate to a much broader range of people.

An example I pointed to earlier was the iPhone. There is a lot of work around the gendered element of phones and some phones are designed so they are appropriate for men's hands but not appropriate for women's hands. That is a really crass example of what is seen as a mainstream technology, and the same applies but in a much more severe way when it means people cannot even access the technology. We are the European hub for all of these digital multinationals and Ireland could show fantastic global leadership by bringing them together and getting them to sign up to principles around “just digital” in terms of governance and how they develop new technologies, the involvement of users and so on. I am very happy to share the paper with the members of the committee and I will put it on the link that is provided in the opening statement. As I said, my colleague, Dr. Katriona O'Sullivan in Maynooth, is the person who has led out on that work.

An assistive product list is modelled on what elsewhere is called an essential medicines list. An essential medicines list was introduced to try to make those medicines that are most frequently required available in bulk so that they can be purchased more cheaply and more reliably. The assistive product list is the same idea. It identifies 50 different types of assistive product including AAC which are seen to be the absolute minimum that a country is required to provide. By developing that list, we know that there is continuity of supply etc. One drawback of the list is the danger that countries may decide only to provide those 50 products. One has to safeguard against that. Many countries including many very poor countries have now developed assisted product lists and they are promoting greater access. For instance, some provinces in Pakistan that are extremely poor have developed an assistive product list, and people are having free access to assistive technologies. If we were able to have an assistive product list in Ireland, we could at least prioritise those products and then look at how we can make sure we are not excluding people who are not using the products on that priority product list.

I was also asked about the difference legislation would make. If we are going to be real about the rights of people within the UNCRPD - the right to participate, the right of access and so on - we need legislation that builds that in. This committee is aware that the Disability Act 2005 entitles one to an assessment but not to an intervention. There is a real danger in Ireland that assessments will increasingly be moved into the private sector and people will have less access to them. It will be important to have legislation that establishes not only that people should have an appropriate assessment for assistive technology but also that they should be entitled to the appropriate intervention, namely the technology itself and the ongoing maintenance. In many cases with which members are familiar, people get an initial prescription for assistive technology but when it needs to be renewed, funding is not available for them. This is a terrible situation because it literally involves giving a person something and then taking it away. Unless these things are on a legislative basis - and the HSE, the Department of Education or some other entity is compelled to meet those requirements - other demands on services mean that those requirements simply will not be met. I believe that is unacceptable.