Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all our contributors this morning. I read their opening statements with great interest through the filter of the publication this week by the committee on children of its report on assessments of need. I constantly query how many of the gaps here relate to the data that were available in planning. That planning needs to go back to subjects taken in secondary school, options for college, the number of places in college and the appropriateness of college courses, and then move on to employment and the provision of services. The data need to be many years ahead of provision in order to meet what is required. It is important to gather information on who is born and where as quickly as possible post birth, or even before birth.

That leads me to the issue of thresholds. In terms of whether people include themselves in questions, are the thresholds sufficiently refined? I refer to questions Nos. 15 and 16 in the most recent census. I wonder how many people included themselves in the physical activity question or, alternatively, did not consider it relevant to them or wish to explain themselves in terms of age or unfitness. There are a number of things that worry me in this regard. Even when seek more qualitative data, how do we get it? I have reached the age I am but nobody has ever surveyed me, or anyone I know, in the context of anything like that. Of whom are the questions being asked? How do we know they are appropriately including or excluding themselves? In the context of disaggregation, how do we know we are asking the right question? That may be rudimentary to everybody else here. I am in awe of some of the questions asked by my colleagues on this committee. It comes down to the fundamental issue of how we move from quantitative data. There are issues even in the context of quantitative data. Each year, there are many people who apply for disability benefits but are refused, for example. They believe they should be included but they are not. If we are relying on those statistics, then the Department of Social Protection is missing people who believe they should be included. I am thinking of people who are amputees but who, as they have only had one limb amputated, do not meet that medical certificate threshold and consequently are excluded from a heap of benefits. I know one such individual who has never received any support from the State.

I fear we are not asking the right questions and we are not delving deep enough. I have concerns in respect of the lack of planning due to the absence of information. How do we overcome that? In the context of the HSE, despite all the movements, it still often seems to be entrenched in a medical model. How does that influence the social and other needs people have in order to live ordinary lives? My apologies; it is beginning to become a soapbox. I will hand over to our guests.