Mr. Christy Lynch:

I thank Deputies for the opportunity to be here. I will make a general point that arises from a number of the questions on the convention. Another point relates to special schools. In the past, most children with intellectual disabilities went to special schools. Thankfully, that has changed over the years. Special schools remain national schools even though children stay there up to the age of 18 years. They follow the national school curriculum up to the age of 18 years. There has always been a view that that the national curriculum is fine when it comes to intellectual disability. Of course it is not fine. A child with intellectual disability should transition, like any other child, from primary to secondary level.

Let us consider the history of inclusive education in this country. Much progress has been made and much good work has been done over the years. We should acknowledge that. However, it was very much focused on primary schools. Issues have arisen when we come to secondary school. This is not an excuse not to do it; we should absolutely promote full inclusion at second level. At second level children are not with one teacher but with seven or eight teachers rotating throughout the school. I was deputy chairperson of the National Council for Special Education twice. Therefore, I know this was one of the issues the council was considering at the time. Secondary schools, like national schools, when this issue arose, were resistant. They made arguments about how they would be unable to do it, how children would not cope and how there was too much change in the day. We know from the evidence that is simply not true. We simply need to provide the levels of support that children require to be able to fully participate at second level.

I am not currently involved with the National Council for Special Education but I believe it might be useful for the committee to ask the council to comment on the issue in respect of the progress made in the area.

I will offer some general points on the questions. The convention is a paradigm shift in the area of disability. It is a completely different lens through which we will approach the disability issue. It amounts to moving away from medical models and models generally towards full participation and equality and rights. It is a foundation for us to build on. There are many things that we have done well but it is a foundation that we can build on.

Reference was made to the question of delay. I maintain that we have excellent policy in this country. I do a good deal of international work. I was involved in putting some of the policy together. We looked to Australia, Canada, USA and anywhere we could find best practice examples to incorporate into the policy in Ireland. However, we did it at a time of absolute austerity. The riders that kept coming on the policy all held that it must be budget neutral. The fact is that people's rights and respecting people's rights is not always budget neutral. People with disabilities have paid too big a price. The convention and the ratification of the convention would represent a statement by Government to the effect that it is committed to it and that it will do it.

One of the arguments for why we have taken so long – I have heard this from previous Ministers – was that when we ratify it we will take our responsibilities seriously as a State and commit to it. What that means is that we put up our money and start to identify the areas and the questions being asked with regard to how we catch up. There are areas where we have done well but there are other areas where we need to catch up. We cannot do that on a budget neutral basis.

The question of whether we need to ratify it has been raised. We do not and we have not done so thus far. We could start and we should start in budget 2018. Whenever we ratify the convention – I hope it will be soon – at least some of the work will have started and will be under way. That would be worth doing.

The difficulty with grey policy – I am quoting my mother here – is that paper never refuses ink. We can write anything down and ratify the convention and clap ourselves on the back for doing it. However, as my colleague pointed out, unless we follow through by implementing the provisions and putting in place the mechanisms to monitor how we are moving it forward, then there is no point. We should not rely on the UN committee. It is great that the committee is in place but we should really take responsibility for our citizens and put right the wrongs of the past.

I will go back to the paradigm shift. This relates to some of the points made. The point about disability officers is a good example. The paradigm shift requires all Departments to revisit the way they address the issue of their responsibilities for people with disabilities. What is the role of county councils? That question was raised by the Senator. The county councils should take responsibility for what county councillors are responsible for. They should do that in a way that respects the rights of people with disabilities, because councils have responsibilities.

I was involved in putting together the comprehensive employment strategy for people with disabilities. We worked with seven Departments. The burning question from every Department was: "Who owns this?" What was behind that question? The view was there was a need to lay it on another body and walk away from it such that each Department would not have to do anything.

The convention does not work that way. It cuts across every aspect of life for people with disabilities, and so it should, because disability affects every aspect of life for citizens with disabilities. The only way we are going to get this right is for everyone in the State to contribute. The Government needs to lead by example. I would encourage the committee to take this back to the Cabinet table and inform the Government that this is a Cabinet issue. It is for the whole of Government. Whenever we get to ratifying or implementing it, we need a whole-of-Government response. Each Department needs to take responsibility for this, take it seriously and implement it. However, we will be unable to do that unless we get back a multi-annual investment programme to put some money behind it.

The convention recognises that all countries are coming from different starting points. We may be one of the last to ratify the convention, but we are far ahead of many countries in terms of what we have done thus far. We still have work to do. My colleague, Professor Gerard Quinn, often says that Rome was not built in a day, but that Rome was built. We will have to identify where we are in that process and what we need to do. Most important, we need to identify how we are going to fund it to put the wrongs of the past right for people with disabilities.