Mr. Ger Deering:

I thank the Chair and Deputy Tully. I will start where the Deputy finished on the transport issue. The Deputy is completely correct in that the Office of the Ombudsman has been highlighting this issue for a very long time now and, sadly, on each occasion when we published a report to say that there was a difficulty, instead of improving and enhancing the scheme, what happened was the scheme was either withdrawn, or, as in the most recent case, the Deputy will probably be aware that in respect of those very harsh criteria which she talked about which are in place in order to get the grant, that there was an issue with the fact that these criteria were in secondary legislation. The response was to put them into primary legislation, which was to make it worse. This is completely unacceptable.

We look back so often on the sins of the past, if we can call them that, and the things that happened years ago. We wring our hands and say it was terrible. This is one of those things that we will look back on in time also and ask how we allowed this to happen for over ten years. It is ten years now and the schemes are so restrictive. One has to be without limbs and one is talking about people with quite serious disabilities who cannot actually qualify. Transport is very much a liberator for a great number of people, most particularly, if one lives in a rural area. It is a problem in the city also because there is a notion that everyone can access public transport. First, all of our public transport is not accessible, but even if it is, there is, perhaps, that extra mile where one has to get from one's house to where the public transport is. This is a very serious situation and it is unacceptable that it has been ignored by successive Governments now for years. We are told that something is happening at the moment and that a new committee has been put in place but I very much feel at this stage that we need action rather than committees.

On the issue raised by the Deputy in respect of housing, Ms O'Boyle might be able to tell me if we have specific complaints in that area. I will broaden it out, however, because what I think is being asked about is the difficulty people have in making applications. We agree that there is often a lack of awareness and understanding that some people need a particular format or way of communicating. I referred to this in the context of communications. A letter might not be the best way. A phone call might be a better way to communicate with a person. The person may need someone to sit down with him or her to assist with filling in the application form. We do not get many complaints under the Disability Act in respect of access. It is a matter we are considering. We may need to make people aware that they can bring a complaint in this regard to our office because accessibility is not just physical accessibility; it is also accessibility in terms of being able to contact somebody. For example, we recently came across a situation at one of the workshops I mentioned where a deaf person had to arrange to have an interpreter on a phone call. The person did so but, unfortunately, was left waiting so long that the slot booked with the interpreter had elapsed by the time the phone call was answered and dealt with. People need to put themselves in the situation of the person trying to get the service from them.

My colleagues from the other organisations will deal in greater detail with co-operation between schools, let us say, and disability services but I, too, will address that issue. There is often a significant lack of joined-up thinking between the various services. The Deputy mentioned silos and the handover when people go from being children to adults. The Chair mentioned at the outset that children who have autism grow up to be adults who have autism. Their needs do not stop when they hit 18 years of age. At the other end of the scale, people with disabilities right across the range can lose significant benefits or assistance when they hit 65 years of age. When a person who, unfortunately, has had a disability all his or her life and been treated and dealt with as such turns 65, suddenly the idea is that he or she no longer has a disability or is moved into a different area. There is a need for joined-up thinking in all these services. We have even come across what is sometimes called the postcode lottery or community healthcare organisation, CHO, lottery. The committee is probably aware that the health service is divided into CHO areas. We see situations where people can get a service in a particular CHO area but cannot get it in another CHO. That does not make sense. People who have an entitlement should get the service irrespective of where they live. I will leave it at that for the moment because my colleagues are better placed to deal with some of the Deputy's other questions.