Dr. Iris Elliott:

To speak as a mental health clinician, there has been a real problem in that the Disability Act precedes the CRPD. It is not compliant with the convention. Part 2 has always been problematic. I was involved in the development of that legislation and in trying to negotiate with the Department at the time. There has been a development of a very complex system around assessments of need. Practice has evolved since 2005. I would imagine that Part 2 of the Disability Act does not necessarily reflect good practice fully. The main concern is the right to assessment of need and provision of services in a timely and proportionate manner, including a preventative approach with early intervention, leading to potentially not needing more complicated services later on. It is also about recognising that although this is focused on health support services, if you do not have them, the impact on children's education and life chances is significant and that there is an impact on families and carers if there are additional requirements. It has a huge ripple effect. We encourage investment in this system and that the system should reflect current good practice, informed by rights holders and their family members. There should not be an argument in a wealthy society that we do not have adequate resources. That clearly has been set aside by the UN and is not persuasive.