Mr. James Cawley:

This goes back to the general question of the need for the disabled person to lead and be in control. It is interesting that during this meeting, all the witnesses have mentioned choice, aspirations and control. The one thing we all want in our lives - disabled or non-disabled - is that choice and to have aspirations and control. It is important that the wishes of disabled people be respected all the time.

That brings me to the definition of personal assistance services. We in ILMI, as a national disabled persons' organisation know the definition of personal assistance services, but among CHO areas and service providers, that varies. That, inevitably, leads to flaws within some service providers, in that it might become more of a care or home help role. A definition needs to place the disabled person at the centre and take account of our needs. In consultation with our members, we came up with a definition, and it is important that the definition is consistent among the CHO areas to standardise that approach. That is one way of helping to realise standardisation.

As I said, I can send to the committee a copy of the paper on the Swedish model. It refers to eligibility assessment, with the person in control. At local level, a person can get up to 20 hours, and if he or she requires more, that is done at a national level. Moreover, funding is in place and there is flexibility for a person to fully direct his or her service. In summary, the key aspects are eligibility in respect of cross-impairment, the funding being there and the fact that the local and national levels are linked, which is really good.

The point the Senator made about assistive technology is really important. We need to consider a suite of options and to pull out the tools from the toolbox of independent living that enable me and many disabled people to live independently. For me, those tools are a powered wheelchair, a personal assistant and assistive technology, such as an accessible house. Nevertheless, while we might live in a house, the assistive technology has to be implemented, whether motors on the door or whatever it is, to enable us to live independently.

That brings me to the final point, which relates to Article 19. A home or a house has four walls, but we need to be able to engage and live in that home with the range of supports such as personal assistance or assistive technology. Moreover, a house can be situated somewhere that is not close to transport and is not connected to the community or to the post office, the pub, restaurants or whatever the case may be. It is about being connected to one's community, and that reminds me of our public sector duty and obligations.

Under public sector duty obligations all public bodies need to connect the housing with the supports and the supports with housing and so on. I hope this has answered some of the Senator's questions.