Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the groups for coming in today and for the advocacy work they have done over the past two years on behalf of the parents of autistic children. There are other groups, like the Dublin 12 Campaign for Inclusion, that have been doing similar work and, as Ms Kenny has stated, have raised issues concerning access to dental care.

We, as a committee, can make comparisons. Today we are having a discussion with parents and advocates and last week we met representatives of the HSE. It is like we are living in two different countries. The HSE representatives are living in this amazing country where there is a functional CDNT and kids are getting great therapy, while the parents and advocates are living in a different country with a hugely dysfunctional CDNT with huge vacancy rates. The way that the HSE described the CDNT model made it sound amazing and textbook perfect. If I were to write an essay on the CDNT model on that basis, it would sound the best way possible to do it, but clearly the CDNT model is completely dysfunctional and is not working. I do not know many people who are getting any services, and the parent and advocates present have described that situation as well. Senator Flynn asked the HSE representatives directly whether they thought the CDNT model was the best model and they said, yes, hand on heart, they absolutely thought the CDNT model was the best model.

My contribution related to therapies in schools and I meant all schools, not just special schools. The HSE representatives came back to say they are working on providing therapists in special schools but fudged the issue on whether the CDNT model would move back into mainstream schools. A pilot schools inclusion programme took place in Dublin South-Central but it did not seem to take off. Covid seemed to throw a curveball at that.

Why do the delegations think we have high vacancy rates? If therapists were employed directly by schools or had more direct access to schools where their working day revolved around the school day, do they think that would work? From speaking to therapists, I think that is something that might appeal to them a little bit more.

I have an observation rather than a question about Ms Byrne's contribution, which is that she must keep stating what she said. As my colleague Senator Wall said, the HSE representatives were so clear to us and pushed so hard that an assessment of needs is not necessary to get services. We know that is not true because an assessment of needs is necessary to get into any early intervention class, even though they say that is culturally wrong, that the schools have brought that in, and that it is not in law that an assessment of needs is necessary, but we know it is needed. If anyone is applying, they need an assessment of needs for home tuition and domiciliary care. That point is very important and I am glad Ms Byrne spelled it out because many people at home will be watching her. It is very important we reiterate that it is actually very important to get an assessment of needs, and that cannot be allowed to be downplayed.

The HSE representatives also mentioned they were in talks about bringing in day respite for families, which I think could work. Have the witnesses had any interaction with the HSE on talks about day respite services?

Ms Kenny and Ms Smith mentioned the issue of secondary school placements. There have been some improvements in the provision of autism spectrum disorder, ASD, classes in primary schools. It seems to be very difficult now for parents to get their children into a secondary school and have an appropriate placement. It is almost like the Department thinks that autism fades when children reach secondary school. Do the witnesses have comments?