Dr. Alison Harnett:

On the question of imagining what services should look like in the future, in our opening statement we acknowledged the important lived experience that has been expressed. We agree with Deputy Tully on the idea of "nothing about us without us" and the primacy of the lived experience and that voice. From the service provider's perspective, which is the umbrella body we represent, there is a need for multiannual funding to enable planning. I will address the first question on residential matters and then move on to the day supports. The only options that have been funded in the past number of years have been the emergency crisis places. Typically services are delivered too late in a traumatic situation when a primary carer, who is often an elderly parent, has passed away or has become ill. If we imagine a series of steps on a ladder, people are receiving full-time residential support at the most traumatic time of the journey that it could happen. If we could begin investing in multiannual planning, as witnesses in previous debates have talked about, the predictability of the service user's diagnosis allowing that planning, then we could have continual investment in more rights-based approaches such as personal assistants, personal budgets, the home support and moving up those steps of the ladder as appropriate, as required, and in line with the preference of the person. That investment has not been available in the past number of years. All that has been available was purely crisis and emergency response. That is not delivered in a way that allows the person transition into it and develop his or her independent skills as a young adult or as an adult in his or her 20s or 30s who expresses the view that he or she wishes to live outside the family home of origin. We are calling for the multilannual approach to planning, budgeting and delivery of service provision that responds to the UNCRPD and the ADM, and allows people to express and develop their independence in how they live.

In terms of the one size fits all day services, our ambition is to move far beyond that and to have a multilayered approach. There have been many good initiates that need to be further developed. There has been, for example, a wonderful series of transition planning developments where young people are approached two years before they leave school. If we look at the WALK PEER programme, the Cumiskey Ross ability programme, the outcomes from supporting young people at that early stage have been fantastic. That is what needs to be developed and improved. It needs a cross-departmental approach to planning. We call for the inclusion of career guidance for young people in special schools because without that we have very low ambitions which suggests that the only option would be a full-time day service placement when actually, what we should be looking at are employment and education opportunities for young people who attend special schools. We do not have career guidance counselling in those locations at the moment. There is a listening and an acknowledgement of the lived experience that has been expressed here. There is openness on the part of service providers to develop in all the ways described. There are initiatives under the New Directions programme and others that include such things as the transition planning.

In regard to the other two questions, on the consultation on the housing strategy, we would like to compliment the running of the consultation process for the new housing strategy. It has been the most inclusive process I have been involved in during my time with the National Federation of Voluntary Service Providers. It has involved surveys of people with lived experience on both the steering committee developing the programme and in the consultation rounds, which have taken place with DPOs. As a service provider umbrella body, we were involved in that steering committee alongside those organisations that represent people directly. There is very much a holistic, collaborative approach to the development of the strategy. It is probably a model that we would like to see replicated in future strategies. It is inclusive of people with lived experience, service providers and the key stakeholders.

In terms of the collaborative approach with the HSE during Covid-19, an immediate response was required to support people who lived in residential services, many of whom did not normally reside in their residential place until day services closed for public health reasons, and needed to be supported 24 hours a day in the residential space because they were not attending their day services. This required the application of resources from the day service sector into residential supports to allow that support be provided. When we examine the mortality and infection rates for persons with a disability who had significant risk factors at the beginning of the outbreak of Covid-19, in comparison with other jurisdictions, the outcomes have been relatively far fewer. There has been a very low level of infection and a low level of mortality. That has come with an enormous price for families who experienced reduced support in the day service locations during the Covid-19 pandemic. We fully acknowledge the experiences Deputy Tully described. We were in compassionate response to those families but the resources required to ensure a safe service was provided in residential services had an impact on families and we acknowledge that.