Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support amendments Nos. 38 and 40 and use the example of a reply I received to a parliamentary question to demonstrate why. The area from which I come is a developing one like most of those on the east coast. I asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children a question which she forwarded to the Health Service Executive on the failure to fill approved posts in speech therapy, occupational therapy and other front line services in Kildare. Parents have been the advocates while needs officers have represented the points at which advocacy and the putting in place of services was to have happened.

Due to the failure to fill approved posts, a child in my area who is in school in a neighbouring county could not access speech and language services in her home area while other children attending the school could access such services in theirs. In trying to unravel the problem, I asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children why staffing for front line therapy services in County Kildare delivered by the eastern regional area of the Health Service Executive has not increased since 1996 and whether an embargo is in place. An embargo would make a very direct difference to the ability of people to access services. The reply informed me that the public service had to be reduced by 5,000, which statement seems to be chapter and verse. I have read it several times elsewhere. According to the reply, the staff employment ceiling notified by the Department of Health and Children has lessened the numbers employed on 31 December 2002 and it has not been possible for the Health Service Executive to fill approved posts.

As the approved posts in question are in speech and occupational therapy, it is difficult to understand how the Bill will make a difference when other Government decisions create an impediment to its implementation. While I have other examples of practical problems, that one is especially illuminating. As the child to whom I referred would do very well if she received speech therapy, I cannot understand why its provision is not seen as an investment with the potential to deliver a return. While we have no difficulty in seeing a return on assets, it does not appear that there is any expectation of a return on investment in the adoption of a rights-based approach. If an investment were made in her needs, the child in question would have the potential to live a much more independent life.

While a needs officer is required to press for such services, it will be especially difficult to achieve in developing areas in which an embargo on recruiting obtains. Whereas in other areas populations are in decline, in Kildare needs are expanding but services are not. It is a crisis. While we do not have a problem adding another Deputy to the constituency, which is welcome, on foot of the increase of 50,000 in the population, we cannot add an extra speech therapist due to the embargo on public service recruitment. It is not the approach to take.

See this speech in context