Ms Una Nagle:

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute. I have taken a more practical approach to my submission. Being a service provider for people with intellectual disabilities and autism for more than 80 years in Ireland, we have seen a lot of changes in society. We promote the development of community housing for people with disability and community inclusion. We have seen lots of changes. As part of the national disability inclusion strategy consultative committee, I have seen a lot of initiatives being rolled out. However, many of them were delayed. I wanted to highlight some of those.

There are challenges under Article 19 of the UNCRPD and it is to be hoped we can get some practical solutions to moving on from decongregation. It is critical to recognise the stresses individuals with disabilities and their families are under in society at the moment. We have to up our game and start planning as a nation to meet the unmet need that exists.

We are members of the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. A detailed submission on the UNCRPD was submitted in April 2021. I will not go back over that, but there was a transformation. The transformation for people’s lives when moving from congregated settings was acknowledged in that paper. As Ms Weldon mentioned in her opening statement, we acknowledge the role of the person in the planning, and they have to be a key part of the planning process. Our mission and vision are about supporting people to be valued and equal citizens. That is closely aligned with the Government’s policy and we as a nation are acknowledged internationally for that quality in our culture.

My focus is on why there is such slow progress in decongregation, why we do not have a clear pathway for people who are on the waiting list for housing, and on developing community models going forward. There are some strategic uncertainties that need to be addressed and there are some operational difficulties.

In summary, our strategy is to complete our decongregation, and the same is the case for other agencies around the country. I am referring to completing decongregation, ensuring all new developments are community-based and person-centred, and that there are smaller services. Under Time to Move on From Congregated Settings, we work proactively to get our numbers down, but we are now at the stage where we need help. The majority of residents who are remaining on campus settings have very complex support needs and we need clarity on the strategy to develop specialist services. We have to balance that with Article 19 to ensure we prevent seclusion and isolation if we are to develop specialist services.

We wish to highlight the lack of suitability of housing stock as well as the fact we cannot operate quickly enough through the CAS funding system. There are delays there. Therefore, if we identify a property on the market, we need to be able to act quickly and get bridging funding while we await the CAS funding.

Regarding Part V and working with building contractors, this has not really worked for us because site development is premium and builders tend to want to get as many houses on site as possible. On CAS funding applications, some local authorities will say we can only process one at a time. There are difficulties in engaging with housing associations because they have their own governance commitments. The CAS funding is not sufficient and they are incurring deficits in acquiring housing for the disability sector.

I also highlight the lack of funding streams for specialist facilities and respite facilities. We have identified probably four types of housing we should be working on with the model going forward. These include ordinary houses in ordinary communities, which the CAS funding should be able to address. Then we get into designing to support people with complex support needs such as autism and mental health issues. They need quiet environments and space. They need to be able to choose to be part of their local community on their own terms. There are also the issues of complex medical needs and elder care. We welcome the issue of universal design but we do not want for it to be seen as a, so to speak, disability house. The design should be bespoke enough to fit in with the local community. There should be maximum possibilities for integration with the local community.

Regarding other barriers, the lack of a plan is key. When we try to develop as a service provider, we have to source the site, get planning permission, get CAS funding, etc. Again, we feel that if the plan were in place jointly and all Departments were on the same page about the timeframe, things would get done fairly quickly.

We have highlighted that CAS funding is not bespoke enough to support people with disabilities. The amount in the fund is not sufficient. The timing of it can be quite slow. We also highlight the specific developments and whether there are possible solutions. There could be a disability focus on the CAS funding and on the CALF funding. There could be a disability focus on the approved housing bodies, AHBs, many of which do not want to get involved. They see themselves as being in the area of more general housing. There could be a clear pathway regarding who we are planning for, when we are planning for them, as well as a feasibility study. It is quite expensive to develop in the community for certain cohorts of individuals who have specific needs. That said, it is an investment for the future. A short-term funding outlay now will reap benefits into the future.