REALTIME UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT
>> Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming to this Side Event. Welcome, especially to the CRPD Committee Members, delegates and guests. We do not have much time this morning, but we have plenty of biscuits and coffee, so I hope that makes up for the lack of time. This Side Event is focused on the relationship between Human Rights and money. And of course the big pretense is that Human Rights don't cost money, but of course, we know that all Human Rights, not just economic, social and cultural rights do require investments. And we've developed this panel, together, with our partners at Inclusion International, The Center for Disability law and policy in Galway and The Centre for Disability studies at the University of Iceland because all of us are concerned that governments are hiding behind the excuse of a lack of resources for not making progress on the right to live in the community. And that is of concern to each of our organizations and research institutes, and we'd like to share our experience in order to feed into today's day of general discussion around Article 19. So the speakers that we have, who are going to be speaking for a minimum of ‑‑ a minimum of 2 minutes 59 seconds and a maximum of 3 minutes are Connie Laurin‑Bowie, the Executive Director of Inclusion International. Gerard Quinn who is well known to everyone as one of the drafters of the report together with professor Ms. Degener which sparked the CRPD process. And he's going to be speaking, this is very Irish title, very down to earth, putting your money where your mouth is, the legal obligations in Article 19. And one of his PhD candidates Emily Loughlin is going to be talking about independence for older pers, Kelley Johnson, who's a professor of Disability, Social Policy Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia is going to be highlighting issues around personalization of financial and other supports from Australia, and professor Rannveig Traustadottir, who I worked with some years ago and I haven't seen for a long time and still cannot pronounce her sir name is from Iceland. She's going to be talking about the golden standard of Independent Living to cut‑backs, lessons from Sweden. And I'm lie lieu, the Executive Director of the Mental Disabilitied slow quasi center and I'm going to be chairing this session, so we'll take it in the order that I've outlined so, so I'm going to hand the microphone over to Conie.
>> Connie Laurin‑Bowie:  Thank you Oliver. I'm aware I have exactly 3 minutes, I'm going to make three recommendations about community. Many of you will know that Inclusion International held a global campaign on the right to live and be include in the the community. And it culminated in our report which we've circulated to Committee Members and we have additional supports here. The main findings I think we went out and talked to people themselves who have an Intellectual Disability and their families whether they lived in countries that have resources or countries that are poor in resources is the question of what supports people need to live and be include in the the community and what supports we need to have in community to prevent people from being institutionalized or to have them removed from institutions.  I think if I were to summarize the recommendations about what we should be investing in, if the question on the table is what are the things we need to do to prevent people from being institutionalized or to help them be include in the the community, I'll make two recommendations about what we should be investing in, and what we should not be investing in. The very first thing that families and people themselves told us was important to being included in the community was investing in Inclusive Education. When a child goes to school with their peers and lives in their community and is able to participate, they are known by be and supported by their peers as children. And as they grow and mature, they grow up with the people around them in their community. And so, as an investment, Inclusive Education is one of the ways in which we can be sure to include people throughout their lives. The secondary yeah that I think is critically important is livelihoods in some parts of the world these about employment, in other parred parts of the world it's making sure this people have a role to play in their community and we should be investing in those supports. We know wherever a person with an Intellectual Disability lives in any where in the world the likelihood is they're living with their families. So we have to think about how we use families as a resource to support people to be included, not as a barrier to Inclusion. That's a critical finding finding for our report. The final thing I will say because I'm going really fast is the third non‑recommendation is when it comes time when it thinks about what to invest in in terms of services and supports in the community, do not invest in buildings, if we can be clear about anything, we know that services that are centralized and segregated do not result in inclusion in the community. There are many ways to invest in supports for people with Disabilities. Buildings are not the answer. We've learned from the closure of institutions, globally that even creating smaller centers in the community only replicates the issue of exclusion and marginalization. We have to find ways to support people to be active and part of their community, we have many good models for that globally and I urge you to think about where we can find good examples and we have many that we can share. Thank you very much.
>> Oliver Lewis three minutes and nine seconds. J Gerard you need to shave a few seconds.
>> Gerard Quinn:  Good morning, it's a delight to be here, unfortunately I'm a lawyer, you probably heard the adage that lawyers are like weeds that grow in gardens cultivated by the hands of others and once they take root Thai extinguish all other living vegetation. Only a slight exaggeration there.  I think our benchmark is Articled for the spending of money, for the public choices that lie behind the spending of money whether those public choices are acknowledged or not. And our benchmark is Article 19. I want to suggest to you that reading the letter of Article 19 is a little bit misleading, you have to go somewhat deeper to excavation, the real exampleble values. To me it's a mix of many different things, it's this mix of different things that makes the right to live independently and in the community come to life and help you resolve difficult issues. You probably have noticed that UNCRPD is slightly different to the other thematic Treaties. It's not just about equal opportunities and breaking down barriers. It's not just about social supports and reengineering them to ensure their support rather than entrap people, it's actually more profoundly about human persons, what makes people flourish as individuals, what makes them flourish as citizens and valued citizens who belong in their community. So this concept of personhood I would say is right at the root of Article 19. You probably also noticed that there are at least two different philosophies into waving throughout The Convention that I think are very relevant in giving electricity to Article 19. One is the familiar liberal individualism, my way or the highway. My choice, not yours, back off. And that is definitely present in Article 19 as well as in Article 12 and other parts of The Convention, but there also is another part of Article 19 asking a question of us. Which is who are you?  And the answer is you emerge from the depth, from the quality, from the intensity of the social relationships that we're a part of. So these two philosophies, liberal individualism and for want of a better expression social Inclusion and personhood are a part of Article 19. And it seems to me a concept that is becoming more and more discussed in philosophy and political philosophy and even in economics. Also helps us make sense of Article 19, and that's the philosophy of home. Which is neither public nor private, but bits of both. It's private in the sense that it allows us repose prediction system the maddening crowds, space to reflect on who we are and our terms of co‑existence in the community, and it's also public in the sense that the social Geography of where we are invites the community into our life and vice versa. And I would suggest that notions like home, personhood and flourishing really lie at the root of Article 19. And that, to me, makes sense because then Article 19 itself sits up and dances. It's not just an inert lair's track. It's about choice, it's about positioning the individual to have some sort of say over the life this which they lead. It has to do with materiality of personhood. We've all noticed when we go into a nursing home with nothing in it except a bed and a person, there's something missing there, the person is not projected in space and that space doesn't project the person back. Also, about the natural supports we all need to flourish as human beings.  I don't think there's anything qualitatively distinct about Persons with Disabilities except that people with Disabilities are right at the van guard of the personalization of supports which is something that's going to happen for every citizen in the 21st century. And last of all, of course, it's about making the community open and accessible to persons, so my take away is Article 19, forget about the lawyers for the moment and start with the conception of personhood. Start with the conception of human flourishing in society. And I think there you have a huge part of Article 19. Thank you.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Well, I think we should give lawyers, we talk so much, we have to give them reasonable accommodations, so that was four and half minutes, yeah. You know we shouldn't be too critical maybe. (Laughing) right, moving swiftly on to Emily Loughlin, also from Galway. Thank you.
>> Emily Loughlin:  Good morning. (Can't hear her).
>> I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop and ask you to turn on the make phone perhaps and speak loudly. Thank you.
>> Experience such attraction provide support ‑‑ challenges ‑‑ older people (Inaudible) however, also play what common both in similar challenges ‑‑ [Inaudible] institutionalization. Article 19 of the the UNCRPD (Thank you) applies to all Persons with Disabilities regardless of age, it is therefore an important instrument for older people in strengthening and exercising their right to community living. It has the potential to redress the vulnerability with respect to community living that older people, in common with Persons with Disabilities have long experienced. Chap legs to independence and autonomy begin in the form of restrictive guardianship laws, and government policies or insufficient services all have the Ifect of encroaching on the ability of older persons and pers with Disabilities to experience community living. It is this Web Components monoality in aging and Disability ‑‑ to pursue the common goal of community living. They benefit immeasurable from inclusive communities. Supporting older people to exercise their right to community living makes sense both from a moral and economic perspective. It affords older people the dignity to age in place and takes account of the role that home and environment plays in a person's sense of self and identity. It also provides an alternative to costly institutional care that can have such negative outcomes for older people. These very same points hold true for Persons with Disabilities. Supporting the rational for synergy in approach. However, exploring and capitalizing on intersectionality that would enhance the achievements of community living for all requires innovation and an exploration of how the nexus between Disability and aging exist. It's part of the life force trajectory and Disability adds another dimension to the aging process. A real need to integrate knowledge from both sectors. US administration for community living a federal organization established to support older people and person with disability to achieve community living by rationalizing quantifying program streams. In conclusion independence is also an issue for older people. Being a part of the community and remaining a part of the community aers a sense of identity and continuity that is lost in institutions. However, achievement of meaningful community living will necessitate innovative thinking, investment in resources, and as with Persons with Disabilities engagement with older people themselves. Thank you.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Thank you very much, sorry for changing places, the person who's doing the typing is in New York (Hamburg) and listening through my Skype, so maybe, my community has to follow the speakers. I'm going to hand over Kelley. Just press the red button. Thank you.
>> Kelley Johnson:  I'm from Australia, I wanted to raise a big thing happening in my country, which I think brings together issues around personalization and also financing. And the innovation is called the national Disability insurance scheme. This is a big innovation for Australia, it grew from concerns about the Disability about the Disability supports in our country. Some of the unfairness of those and also the impact of the CRPD the national Disability insurance scheme is based on personalization. It is particularly concerned with people with severe Disabilities. It is something that is there for all Australians at any point in their lives up to the age of 65. If they find themselves with a severe Disability. It is based on a plan, once you are accepted into the NDIS, there is planning for your aspirations and for the support needs that you have, and a personalized budget to support those. Now, I'm not sitting here praising this uncritically, I think it has difficulties. It only applies to seven groups of people with Disabilities in the community. It does not tackle housing. It does not provide housing, for instance, which a big issue. However, it does place people with Disabilities in the center of their lives, it does focus on planning them and with them or by them, which is the most important thing. But it also has a solid basis around economics. Careful planning went into this scheme. Research was done before it was developed. Then it has been rolling out across Australia in sites from which we've been learning what the issues are for people. It will be fully implemented by 2018‑19 and by July this year with the exception of one state. The ‑‑ at the moment it is operating within budget and it is the preliminary research suggests that people involved in it are finding it a very positive experience. Look, I'm throwing this in today because I think it is one way of perhaps linking finances and personalization, Article 19. It has been very closely linked with financial issues and the predictions are, at least from the people heavily involved in it, that although it may cost quite a lot of money, it is less than would be the amount if we continued with the old ways of providing services. And that it will make a contribution to the growth of our economy. I'm going to stop there.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Perfect, thank you so much. Maybe if you could move my computer over to Rannveig Traustadottir from Iceland who will now tell us about Sweden. And after Rannveig's presentation we'll take questions, comments from the floor and have discussion.
>> Tray true:  Good morning, everyone, what I'm going to tell you about ‑‑ what I'm going to talk about is based on research that we've done in Sweden about the implementation of the Article 19. And, as you may know, Sweden has been at the forefront of personal assistance and Independent Living. it has been a legal right to have personal assistance under the service laws since 1994, so we thought we were going to look at the golden standard as it's often thought of Independent Living. However, surprisingly what we found is that instead of ratification of the CRPD strengthening the right to personal assistance and Independent Living there has been a number of cutbacks and people losing personal assistance or people applying being denied so we were incredibly surprised and so we said, how can this happen?  And what we found out was that personal assistance, when it was introduced it was so popular among disabled people it was considered, of course, then a success by disabled people, but there were no limits on how much could be spent on it and the number of personal assistance user they rose way, way beyond what the government had expected. And so the government panicked and sort of looked at it and said, this is beyond control, so what do we do?  So they started investigating it and found this they were, in some cases, overused, fraud or cheating, and it wasn't always used as the law predicted. There was also very weak monitoring of the organizations providing personal assistance. And so what the DPOs saw as a great success,e the government saw as a great problem, so how do we deal with it?  So they went back to the law, they didn't change the law, there is still a right under the law, but they reinterpreted how the law, the qualifications in the law. So and one of the main problems also found was that there were over half of the organizations organizing personal assistant schemes were for profit private organizations. So what did they do?  They started cutting back and what the government mostly cut back was on individual disabled people and, at the same time, the for profit organizations are still making a lot of money on public funds. And that is not being tackled properly in our view. So this has also resulted in the ‑‑ before but it was a lot of collaboration between DPOs and the government in Sweden, but now the DPOs haves with drawn from this process in protest and the battling and fighting for personal assistants and the right to Independent Living has moved to the quarts and the courts we have, obviously, judges and lawyers who are not very well versed on the CRPD so they ‑‑ what do you call it?  They finder ‑‑ they resourced to medical definitions of basic needs which means cutting the personal assistance scheme. So this is a really interesting lesson and a worry for those of us that believe the CRPD is going to move us forward. Now, the DPOs in Sweden who have not really used the CRPD much because there wasn't really the need because they were so ‑‑ but now they have resourced it to starting this legal battle instead of this collaboration process before. So, I just throw this out as a lesson to, you know, how vulnerable the rights are.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Thank you very much, Rannveig. So desperate times call for desperate measures.  I'd like to open the discussion out to the floor. So, please, if you'd like to make a point or if you have a question to any of the speakers, if you could say your name and where you come from, this would be great. Please, madam.
>> Speaker from the floor:  Thank you very much. I want.
>> It's on now.
>> Speaker from the floor. How do you see so‑called ‑‑ [Inaudible]
>> How would community based rehabilitation comply Article 19 in developing countries?  (complimentr ‑‑ how would community based rehabilitation come mement Article 19 in developing countries. Thank you for those two questions, any other comments or questions. The second question was about euphemisms for institutions, how does one distinguish between a genuine community‑based service and something which is an institutions but is called something other than an institution. Are there any other questions or comments?  Yes, please.
>> speak.
>> speak ‑‑
>> Thank you very much, maybe we'll take, yes, please.
>> Question:  Do you have any kind of analysis about how Independent Living affects women with Disabilities?
>>
>> How have the Swedish people fought in the courts?  How many cases?  What outcomes?
>> Oliver Lewis:  Right, thank you, we have two with more questions, Diane over there and the man at the front.
>> Fang tastic presentation. They were wonderful. Most of the Committee members have said that Independent Living, independent ‑‑ [Inaudible] [Inaudible] I would like to just know your thoughts on that.
>> Question:  ‑‑
>> So for Kimberly, independence begins in the mind, what do you think about that statement?  Thank you, man in the front row.
>> It seems that what we've heard this morning is examples of those discrimination ‑‑ gross discriminations against persons ‑‑ community‑based rehabilitation has come up. The World Health Organization is welcome mitted to CRPD and seems that any other organization, apart from this committee HCR, they have a fantastic commitment to RRPD both in ‑‑ and it's forward looking plan, 2014‑2017.  ‑‑ [Inaudible] and yet, people with dementia do not seem to be included in its implementation. I'm raising this at the conference ‑‑ at the end of this week when there'll be two WHO representatives. But challenge to the Committee is how do you ‑‑ how do you challenge what seems to be systemic neglect of the needs of persons with medical conditions?  Many of them are old, but some of them have medical conditions, traumatic brain injuries as a result of bullet wound or a traffic accident and those people deserve rehabilitation, they are Persons with Disabilities, dementia is definitely include in the Article 1 and yet the organization that is doing excellent work on the CRPD has not seem to consider that people with dementia, but I believe other groups as well are included in its implementation. So what I'm really asking whether you are in a position to have a dialogue with governments about this at the highest possible level, because it's very difficult to do that.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Thank you very much for those interventions, there are no Committee Members on this panel but there's plenty in the room, I'm sure they could epigauge in a dialogue with them. So if I coiled ask the panelist to respond, maybe we're going to start with the last point about the intersection between older people and people with Disabilities many older people have Disabilities particularly with dementia, that don't seem to be include in the the am bit of Disability. Especially when we're talking about independent living, in have many countries when people get older the norm is to send them off to a nursing home, those two words nursing and home sound lovely as do the three words social care home, but we've all visited have many of those and we know, that many do constitute an institution which would not be compliant with Article 19 of the Convention. So how does ‑‑ and that links in with the point made about euphemisms about institutions. Would any panelist like to respond to that point in particular?  Gerard.
>> Gerard Quinn:  With respect to euphemisms for institutions, really important question, I think it's important to recollect that we didn't use the word institution or deinstitutionalization in Article 19. We meant it as a completely positive philosophy of the person flourishing in the world. So by Deaf fission, institutions are per se violation of Article 19. With respect to signs and I think that's kind of what you were getting at one government delegate last year, I won't tell you which country. Told me we've moved from 60 beds to 20 beds isn't that progressive achievement. To those of you that sit on the Committee, watch this very carefully. My way of squaring the circle is not simply to respond from within Article 19, but to cross refer to Article 8 upon which there's a hard legal obligation on governments to nurture receptiveness to the rights of people with Disabilities. We simply can't do that to the man on the street micro not less many institutions that might be an intersectionality it's one of my great neglect that there weren't Civil Society groups of older people at the table, I think that's the only explanation for why age as such received relatively little treatment compared to gender and children. There are some important toe holds in The Convention and the Committee has operationalized the intersectionality.  I tell you watch UN open working inter group on the Rights of older people, it's incredibly important that some of the headline norms, particularly on community living resonate with the head line norm in the UNCRPD.
>> Thank you, what about euphemisms, I know from our work it's the trend for many governments to say we're closing our big, decrepit, large institutions and we're doing community‑based services but what they mean is they're putting people into 20‑30 bedded units, assessment units homes, these are the words being used. Living centers, living settlements, so how can we combat euphemisms, Connie?
>> Connie Laurin‑Bowie:  I'll combine my comment on euphemisms with the question on Global South. One of the risk we see under Article 19 as the emphasis on investment in Disability happens, there's an inclination to be investing in buildings, so what we've seen from large development agencies investing in the Global South is an emphasis on we're going to do something for Disability, what should we do?  Let's build a center. Let's build a school. Let's build a home. So we're in real danger, I think of having the replication of the mistakes that have been made in other parts of the world happen in developing countries. And I think I offered some ideas about what the alternatives might be in terms of investments in community.  I think we have to work very closely with the large international NGOs as well as development agencies of governments to ensure that they're not putting a name on a door as a way of saying they're investing in Disability and that happens over and over again. In our report on Article 19 we asked the question where institutions are closing what are some of the words people use for the places this people live?  And we have a list of euphemisms that people gave us which was slightly tongue in cheek, but really quite alarming, things like ranches and gaited communities and all of the kind of things that people will put as icing to call something that we think of as a segregated institution, it's not about how many people live in the place, it's about who has control over what happens, what services you receive, what you get, do you get to decide when to eat dinner, or if you have a key to your home. Those kind of choices and the key for me in Article 19 is choice and support. You get choice over the support you have and where you live and with whom.
>> Kelley Johnson:  I think the issue of euphemisms is also linked to the question around how much of this is in the mind that we need to change ‑‑ views. Let me just start with euphemisms, it seems to me that at a time when we keep talking about closing institutions ‑‑ we're engaging in a very big building of institutions in relation to old people. And one of the things that I've seen happen is that younger people with Disabilities find themselves in nursing homes. I'm not advocating for nursing homes at all, but it does seem to be that is a slippery slope. That it becomes a place that takes the place of large institutions. Not only for older people, but also for younger people with Disabilities.  I think that's quite worrying.  I think the other thing is that the issues around while we're setting up houses, they're going to have their own home.  ‑‑ this person's got their own front door for the first time in their lives. Sounded great until you walked in and realized that behind the front door was a house linked to two other hiss with a door in between so in fact it was a mini institution with individual front doors at the front.  I worry about that.  I also see that a lot of things that happened around here ‑‑ euphemisms around replacement of one institution by another has to do with the way in which we position people with Disabilities and older people. And I have an uneasy suspicion that unless we invest a lot more in the way in which we do that, we're simply changing one set of institutions for another.  I don't think it would be nearly enough investment, time commitment, knowledge and resources into how we we begin that climate change.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Thank you. So one of the things that people can do if they feel that their Article 19 or any other rights have been violated is to go to court. Often, of course, it may be too late to prevent the building of an institution, which is why the Committee is proactive, preventive work is very important, but, Rannveig you described an example of DPOs going to court to combat violations of Article 19 and there was a question about how many people and what are the outcomes. Maybe you could enlighten us on that please.
>> Rannveig Traustadottir:  I have been following a few cases in Sweden and Iceland and it seems like the rights of disabled people to live in the community and have and have the support needed is badly protected in most countries. So many of these people lose their rights to live in their own homes or to have the personal assistance needed to live on their own. And I, unfortunately didn't hear very clearly the question from the gentleman in the back. So I'm not answering your question, please repeat it afterwards. But, just to go a little more in to that Swedish situation. You can get personal assistance based on five basic needs. The first one is personal hygiene, second assistance with meals, third dressing and undressing and four communications with others and the fifth need help that requires extensive knowledge about the person. These are available for people with major and lasting and functional impairments. So what the court case is only ruled on, the first three basic needs, personal hygiene needs and dressing and undressing. And the more social ones, the CRPD tries so hard to protect, social aspects, they are not ‑‑ the courts have just ignored them. So they resource to very strict bodily functions that are sort of medically, you know, interpreted. Which is also against the CRPD, so it's very worrying and sends a signal that the judges and the lawyers are not very knowledgeable about the content of the CRPD, so I think one of the things that we really need to focus on is to build capacity and knowledge about the CRPD among governments, local and national and among those who are lawyers and judges that make rulings in these cases. So I would also like to say something about the gender aspects of personal assistants. First of all, I would say that the gender aspect has a lot to do with family ‑‑ wider family network. Because who is doing the natural support?  It's the women in the family. And so if there is a personal assistance for an adult person who has been staying at home, that real hi alleviate the women in the family, most of them the mother from doing extensive care work ‑‑ hinders that woman from exploring other avenues. Where we have found that personal assistance, especially for people with very significant need support needs that has made a lot of difference in families, especially for females in the families. Also I agree that Independent Living begins in the mind and I know a number of people who have ‑‑ and have personal assistance and it lib berated them in thinking about the possibilities in life. And women live more restricted lives then most men and are very often very protected because of fears of abuse and violence. So it's even more liberating for the women to have personal assistance than for men who are often more explorers of the world and women are sort of held closer to home. So this are definite gender, everything is gendered. If you don't see it you just need to look, everything is gendered. And then lastly, I ‑‑ ‑‑ [Inaudible] institutions as some countries ‑‑ that is not correct. We have moved our institutionalized practices into people's homes. In small apartment clusters. We need some kind of a basic reform of the mind set to practice differently, because you can be institutionalize in the your own little home if you have no control and nothing to say and you know the ... the system and assistants run your lives. It's not the answer. It's the basic fundamental reform of the way we think about people.
>> Oliver Lewis:  Thank you very much, I'm going to ask Gerard Quinn to come back on the Swedish point. I'm going to prep the other panelist to in one sentence to describe what it is to the Committee members that you would like to see in a general comment on Article 19. What's the one point, one sentence and no reasonable accommodation will be allowed for lawyers, no long sentences, just short center tenses, what is it you would like to see in a general comment. First, Gerard Quinn you wanted to say something on the Swedish point.
>> Gerard Quinn:  It's not peculiar to Sweden it could be any country. To have the view that ‑‑ the ratification of the UNCRPD in a country like Sweden would not consolidate and move forward existing provision, I think is unrealistic from the point of view of international law, mainly because with respect to economic and social rights and entitlements, the obligation is to progressively achieve. But implicit in that is the possibility of regression. International lay does not prohibit States from regression if they feel the need to do so. However, however, there are certain core principles that govern when and how and if a country reyeseses on its current station, let's say social provision. And one of them is, if it violates the core of the relevant Article, which of course begs the question for the Committee, in your mind, what is the core of Article 19?  For my own point of view, the supports that are mentioned in section paragraph 2 of Article 19 are not just the traditional medical supports of meeting needs. We've gone beyond that, it supports to enable people to bridge their lives into the community. And that's why I would say, hypothetically, if I were on the committee Sweden has broken the actual core of Article 19. That's all I wanted to say.
>> Oliver Lewis: ‑‑ ratify es the CRPD ‑‑ just on the point of regression, that is something which surely the Committee will be grappling with in it's inquiry on the United Kingdom, that's the very point there, I'm looking forward to how the Committee grapples with the tension between cutbacks in Disability benefits because, obviously the UK government is saying that's economically necessary, so this issue of financing is at the core of Article 19. So, in summary, dear colleagues, in one sentence each, what is it that you would like to see in an ideal general comment on Article 19?  Why don't we start right at the end.
>> [Inaudible] Emily Loughlin:  ‑‑
>> So intersection between aging and Disability. Thank you.
>> I would like ‑‑ very different ‑‑ and societies to now ratify the CRPD, the Committee to take a stronger line on how we provide clear, accessible information to people on the ground in those countries. There's a lot of confusion when people try to implement Article 19 [Inaudible]
>> Thank you.
>> Well, I believe that we need to personalize the provisions so that, like what the people have said on this panel, so that the ‑‑ money stays with the person is given to the person and follows the person and not ‑‑ [Inaudible] so I think personalized funding and services are important.
>> Connie Laurin‑Bowie:  I think that we would be very happy to see the Committee reflect on strong and inclusive communities are and how we invest in those communities. And I think we have to consider investing in people, people with Disabilities themselves, their organizations, and families where children with Disabilities live and start their lives. So that we can begin to shift the idea of how we support people in our communities and think about social connectedness and think about how people participate in their communities. So rather than thinking about Disability services uniquely and alone, we think instead about how we enable people themselves with Disabilities and their families to connect to community, to be part of community and to contribute to inclusive communities.
>> Thank you.
>> So, it's no surprise that kind of motif that I would like to see in the general comment would be notions of personhood and getting alive in the community and intersectionality yes, if terms of other identities but also intersectionality with other Articles in The Convention that signify Article 12 and receptiveness. (Emblematic).
>> Thank you very much, colleagues and thank you everyone for coming and participating, it's been only 45 or 50 minutes, but I think we've had had a very rich discussion. Please at the food and drink the coffee outside and have a lovely day of general discussion. Thank you very much. (Meeting con collided at t 9:56 a.m.