Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Excellent. As I said, Mr. Darmody forwarded the correspondence to me, having met with a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies. I understand he met political groupings right across the House. This was last week. I forwarded the correspondence to the committee. Subsequently, it became a matter of debate at Leaders' Questions this week. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, has also commented on the wider provision of services for children with autism and the use of independent contractors to help meet that need. I forwarded the correspondence to this committee because I had a concern about what happens with a child in need of autism care. It is with Mr. Darmody's permission I am making this case because I think he agrees with it.

A child who was not number one on the waiting list received the support of the HSE by way of the HSE making payment to an independent contractor. The key point here is a that child who was not ordinarily number one on the waiting list received what was an ad hocsolution. There is a clear correlation to be drawn from this, which is that the HSE was stepping in to, in one sense you might say assist, but the other suggestion might be to silence, a patient and their parent, who was being incredibly proactive and campaigning on an issue. In order to deal with that child's needs, a bespoke solution was put forward. Separately, you could also say that without the advocacy of herself and her father, she may not have received that. That is not a correct way for the HSE to assess the needs of a child. Dealing with parents who are advocating in a bespoke way is not a correct manner in which to spend State resources and is not a way in which there is an independent, transparent process. There are much bigger policy issues that the Government needs to deal with on this in the context of the provision of autism services and so on, but we should ask the HSE to comment specifically on why this particular solution was put in place and made available to Mr. Darmody and his daughter Cara, and why it was not made available to others. That is the first question.

The second question is why Cara was selected to be the appropriate recipient of this, and not others. I am not saying, nor is Mr. Darmody, that she did not need it or does not require it, or that it has not benefitted her. What we are here to do is ensure public money is being spent appropriately and also that there are transparent systems that benefit all the citizens of the State and not just those who are forced to advocate. There are many people who are not in a position to advocate. There are parents of children with autism who would not even be able to have the head space to deal with campaigning, meeting political parties and all that. The HSE should be asked to respond to the very clear sequence put forward by Mr. Darmody. As I said, I am not seeking to tread into the policy issues. I am asking for the HSE to comment on one patient who was given a bespoke solution and what the impact of that is.

The final point is that there is clear connection with the nursing home support scheme. If there is a service that is not available through the HSE and if somebody is entitled to that service and they do not receive it, the question that arises is whether they could be entitled to compensation further down the road. It is the same as the nursing home support scheme and the fact that it was subsequently ruled that some patients should have been entitled to access that scheme. At the moment, parents right are paying for this service out of their own pockets. They should not be obliged to do that. The correspondence before us is significant and the HSE should be asked to comment on it.