Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. You will be delighted to hear that I will not sing anything. I will not inflict that upon you.

Sitting on this committee is very challenging and very rewarding in equal measure. As many have already said, it shines that very important light on the many shortcomings of us as a State and as a society. On a weekly basis in here, we get wonderful insights into the opportunities that are out there if we are able to mobilise, encourage and really empower the disabled community across all spectrums to keep engaged in society and make a meaningful and valuable contribution.

I would not look to America as an example too often, but Bob Goodman, who ran the largest disability sector service in New York, was in Leinster House last week. Mr. Goodman is doing consultancy work with a number of section 39 organisations in Ireland at the moment. He made a point which I found very interesting that I will expand on. It was about the municipal contracts in New York at present whereby any companies applying for that work must have a percentage of its staff with a disability. This is important and something we need to look at.

With regard to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the one thing that jumps out is that it is seeking to bring a paradigm shift in public policy that is based on an understanding of disabled people as rights holders. Then there is a very short line that includes people with autism. That is probably for our benefit but it gets to the kernel of the issue where we are still having to add on autism as a disability when in fact we must accept that it is not. I do, however, accept why it is there. It is very much about talking the walk. This probably goes to the kernel of Mr. Deering's point that another committee or another report on the transport issue is not needed; it really needs to be resolved.

A lot of people with the best of intentions across different organisations are trying, in different silos, to effect change. Are we at a point where we need to challenge all of our service providers? I am aware that we have the Disability Act and there is a lot of legislation in place that really should police the situation and should give service users the power but it is clear that the legislation does not do this, because people are being obliged to resort to the Ombudsman.

Are we at the stage where we need all staff in all public services to sign up to a charter of rights? For many people, for example, it could be about corresponding with them by letter. It should be the case that they can tick a box to indicate they would prefer to get a telephone call. That must be a right. That should be a right. In the case of housing applications, for example, we frequently see that people will get a letter back and the reality is that they are not able to comprehend it for a variety of reasons. The housing staff believe that they have ticked a box because they have sent a letter out and asked for further information. The reality is that a lot of people simply do not have the coping skills or coping mechanisms to deal with that and they do need support. It may help if the phone is picked up and they are offered help and assistance in that way. Perhaps the witnesses could come back to me on this one point.

I was very struck by Dr. McAuley's point. She reminded us that she told us in November about an opportunity for children with autism to share their views. We have heard parents at this committee on a weekly basis articulately and emotionally voicing the case. It is probably the one piece of the jigsaw that is missing. I am aware that it is very difficult to get the children to voice that opinion. Perhaps Dr. McAuley could come back to me on this. Is there an example anywhere in the world where that has been done? Clearly, it should be an obvious action for this committee to get the voice of children with autism. In the short life span of this committee, it would be a huge achievement if we were to attain that.

In Mr. Deering's submission he referred to 4,000 complaints in 2021. It is a huge number and the highest it has been in 38 years. Unfortunately, there is no geographical breakdown, which probably would have been helpful. It could point to the issue of the postcode lottery Mr. Deering referred to. Is there a particular reason the office does not collate across socioeconomic bands? This crosses over with what some of the other speakers have said that we need to be capturing this information and if a service user is identifying with autism then we need to have that information. Is this something the office is looking at changing or is there a specific reason they are unable to do that?

My last question is for Dr. Conaty and Ms Gibney around inclusive design. It should be a given that inclusive design should be in all public buildings. Everything should be autism friendly. The Department of Education probably has multiple new school contracts at the moment. Aside from the special educational needs, SEN, base component of those builds they will give no consideration whatsoever. We need to change that. There is no point trying to change this retrospectively. We should be doing this from the get-go. Perhaps the witnesses could expand on that.

Ms Gibney spoke about the divide that we have. The Department of Education tells us that we have a record spend on special education with 25%, or €1 in every €4 in the Department's budget being spent on special education. However, even at a local level, I can see where it is creating issues. Schools are establishing their SEN bases, but in many cases some schools are being selective on the actual disability they are accepting into their special educational needs, or they are trying to build a case that it is for people with a specific type of disability. As Ms Gibney has rightly said, we very much need to get a total integration model. What would Ms Gibney suggest we need to do to almost rein us back from this absolute commitment to providing this special educational needs bases? Clearly, we will build up a problem for ourselves if schools start adding SEN bases without looking at the kernel of the issue, which is full and total integration across education. I have thrown an awful lot in there, but perhaps the witnesses would try their best.