Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. I have a couple of technical questions. Will moving to a direct provision of services entail HSE direct delivery or will it still involve section 38 and 39 organisations? Recruitment for 100 additional posts following a capacity review report was mentioned. Additional resources, including personnel, in this area would be welcome. I was concerned by the initial presentation's emphasis on the amount of money being spent on school supports. If we get into a dynamic of money being taken from here and put there instead of recognising this as an area that needs different resources, it will be dangerous. It is important we signal that additional resources are needed.

Regarding the capacity review, one of the main issues is not just that we do not have the 91 teams in place but also that we do not know what is required for assessments of need on a full scale. The assessment of needs mechanism does not include diagnosis, proper intervention or planning. People are waiting for a period. Is it not the case we not only need to get the 91 teams in place but we also need to clear the backlog, possibly through those teams, of people waiting in the limbo between having an initial assessment and getting a plan and, in some cases, diagnosis before we know the capacity needs of the 91 teams?

That is really important because it points to why we cannot remove supports that are currently there when not only is the new system not in place but we do not yet know what the pressures and capacity needs on it will be.

On that, I note and welcome the statement from the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, that there will be a pause on the removal of supports from special schools. That is appropriate. This year, we saw how a few months can have an impact in terms of regression. We need to avoid gaps in the system which children carry in their development. It is good that we have places where there is a ratio of 1:30 because it sets a bar towards which we should aim and there should be no backward steps.

Is there still a danger that speech therapy and other services may be removed from non-special, mainstream schools which have made an effort to put additional supports in place through the school system for those members of the school community who need such supports? That is a concern I have because the pausing message we have heard is only on special schools but there are those other schools. I would appreciate a comment on what we mean when we talk about the UNCRPD and the social model. The social model is not simply about where the intervention takes place - it moves it from solely being about the individual and their access to supports to a responsibility on society to redesign and change itself. Mainstream schools have tried to take a lead in bringing supports within their school system to show that those who might need additional supports, such as speech therapy, are part of a school community. Is that not a model we should be pushing so that our schools are responding to UNCRPD rather than simply seeing that the individual can access it another way?

I have a practical question which the witnesses might be able to answer, given that they have had these pilots. I am concerned about some of the assumptions and the possibility that the administrative burden being placed on families who have a child with a disability could increase under this model. Will these new centres be open during working hours only? Will they be open at weekends? Will they be accessible by public transport? Is there an assumption that a full-time parent is free and available to advocate for their child, get them into the systems, deal with the administration and arrange appointments and gaps from schools? Sometimes there is a huge assumption that families can undertake a massive administrative piece, but not all families will have the capacity, and in some cases the willingness, to do this. With school interventions, at least, children may be advocated for in accessing supports through that setting also. What measures are in place in this regard? I worry that children will fall through the gaps between existing supports. I would rather that we doubled up on supports rather than risking those kinds of gaps.