Dr. Frank Conaty:

I will speak first to mainstreaming and then consider the assessment of need. When it comes to mainstreaming, what we have at the moment in terms of default to segregation at times is not compliant with the UNCRPD and we must move on from it. It is a significant challenge. There are two aspects relating to mainstreaming that I will address. One is the whole concept of reasonable accommodation, what it means and the manner in which we approach that and try to live up to the responsibilities of the State and under the convention. As Dr. McAuley stated, one of the interesting aspects in that regard is that there is a tendency towards short-termism, given the manner in which the current statutes are crafted. Nominal cost tends to drive an attitude of taking a short-term approach. It does not take into account a long-term sustainability approach or the long-term costs that may be incurred if we take a narrow and short-term decision. That is something with which we need to get to grips and address.

Universal design comes in for criticism but it is embedded in the UNCRPD. I often say that it has been there since humans began. The difficulty has often been that it has tended to be universal design for the majority as opposed to universal design for everybody in its real sense of being universal. This tends to overlap in terms of universal design in access to services and reasonable accommodation. For example, if there are autistic children in a school and the school rooms have defaulted to a design that has bright walls and reflective surfaces and does not deal adequately with sound absorption and echo, that is not universal design.

The argument under UNCRPD is that, if we designed that room differently, universal design means it should benefit all of the children in the room in terms of their educational experiences. It is about having an open mindset as legislators and deciding that this is where we need to be when making policies and decisions.

The assessment of needs issue has been well aired. It is difficult. If there is evidence of the need to review the Disability Act, it is the 4,000 children currently on waiting lists. In a period of two years, more than 200 legal cases had to be taken by parents to get assessments of need. It is evident that there is a problem with the Act. That may have to do with the Act's interpretation and the manner in which the HSE approaches assessments of need and access, but we must examine the operation of the Act. There are always risks when we review, but if we do it in a UNCRPD-compliant way, we will move on positively. Within any review, we need inclusive consultation. We are discussing the lives of people who will be immediately and significantly affected by a review. We need to move in a positive way. We need to live up to Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD and ensure that we have full inclusive consultation with children and adults who are autistic and have disabilities.