David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I welcome publication of this Bill and hope it is enacted by the Oireachtas as soon as possible. We will do everything we can to facilitate this as we have waited over two years for it to come before the House and it is badly needed. I thank the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and his officials for the briefing we received today which was, as usual, welcome, useful and positive.

The Citizens Information Bill 2006 is one of the major strands of the national disability strategy. It will establish a personal advocacy service operated by the citizens information board. The establishment of a personal advocacy service to assist people with disabilities in accessing health and personal social services and supports has been urgently sought by numerous disability groups, in particular the National Disability Authority, NDA, and Inclusion Ireland. The service aims to ensure equal access to services and supports for people with disabilities. The Minister stated that he expects the service to be fully operational by 2008.

It is clear that advocacy services for people with disabilities are underdeveloped in Ireland. The 2004 report, Developing an Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities, stated that service providers and the community and voluntary sectors are increasingly aware of the need for these services. The report stated that unlike many other countries, Ireland still has a significant population of people with disabilities resident in institutions. Perhaps this Bill does not focus on this aspect enough. It is something we should consider. The report also stated: "As these people are particularly vulnerable, it is essential that advocacy services are designed to reach out to this group." We have seen various reports over the years condemning the practices carried out in many institutions. This is something we need to discuss further on Committee Stage.

The first Comhairle (Amendment) Bill was published in September 2004. It was intended to establish on a statutory basis a personal advocacy service for people with disabilities. However, this Bill was withdrawn to be replaced by the Citizens Information Bill. I welcome the idea of a one-stop shop. Some colleagues did not know of the existence of the Oasis website — they simply did not know what it was. I was amazed to discover that and I compliment those who developed this fantastic website. It contains useful information laid out in an easily accessible way and I use it all the time. Now that we are to have a one-stop shop, not only will Members know of the existence of the service, but the public will too. However, I am a little concerned about its name. While it is easy to type the word "Oasis" into an Internet search engine, the term "citizen information" is a bit longer and may be more challenging for people.

An independent advocacy service is essential if people with disabilities are to be fully included in the process of service provision. We discussed personal advocates during the debate on the Disability Act. This will give many people with disabilities, who may be unable to seek services for themselves, the opportunity to put forward their requests and views on the range of services they receive. I welcome the definition of social service outlined in the Bill. However, while it is broad, it does not include transport and access. While section 2 lists a variety of such services and states the definition of social services is not limited to these items, it should explicitly refer to transport and access.

What will be the geographic remit of the personal advocacy service? Where will the personal advocates be based? Will they be based in Dublin only, or around the country? Has the citizens information board worked out how many advocates there will be, what kind of office supports they will have and where they will be located? Perhaps the Minister will refer to this when he responds.

It is worthwhile reminding ourselves what advocacy means. A comprehensive and often quoted definition was provided by ProfessorWolfensberger in the 1960s. It is the "functioning — speaking, acting, writing — with minimum conflict of interest on behalf of the sincerely perceived interests of a person or a group in order to promote, protect and defend the welfare of, and justice for, either individuals or groups in a fashion which strives to be emphatic and vigorous".

One of the main issues is the establishment of the personal advocacy service. I examined how a person can qualify for this service. Individuals need to apply for this service in writing. In one of its submissions, the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, pointed out that the service seems to be passive; a person must make an application to it. The Minister seemed to row back from this at the conclusion of his speech. Perhaps we can tease this out further. Individuals may not know where or to whom they must apply, whether he or she is entitled to the service, or even know of its existence. After all, we are talking about the most marginalised and vulnerable in society.

Section 5 of the Bill states that a person must be at "risk of harm to his or her health, welfare or safety if he or she is not provided with the social service or services that he or she is seeking to obtain". These seem very negative grounds for availing of a service. There should be something to indicate that a person could avail of the service if he or she would benefit from it. As it stands, individuals will only qualify if harm would otherwise come to them should he or she not get the service. We should turn that around and state that a person qualifies if they would derive benefit from the service. This is a much better way of putting it. In order to qualify for a personal advocate, the person must prove that he or she will come to harm if they do not get the service. How does one do this? The Minister should re-examine this aspect.

The issue of prioritising also arises. Section 5 states "The board shall have regard to the following to determine the order of priority to be accorded to different qualifying persons in the assignment of personal advocates to such persons...". It goes on to list five different grounds for qualifying. How this will work is not made clear. It appears that only the most complex services will be dealt with by the personal advocacy service. This needs to be teased out further. Otherwise, the service could tie itself up in knots.

Comhairle has already been providing an advocacy service involving the voluntary and community sector. The DFI suggests that we should be pulling these advocacy services together under a single director. This Bill provides for the establishment of a director of personal advocacy. I am not sure whether this person will be an advocate — perhaps the Minister could let me know. The director of personal advocacy does not seem to have a role in the wider advocacy remit of Comhairle, or the new citizens information board. The role of director would not be particularly onerous, especially at the beginning. It may be useful to examine the overall advocacy of Comhairle and bring it together under the director of advocacy. DFI has recommended that the changes proposed in the Bill should include mechanisms to link the personal advocacy service with the existing advocacy and support functions in Comhairle, and with organisations with a history of acting as advocates or providing advocacy through Comhairle, for those most vulnerable. It is certainly worth examining.

The DFI is also concerned with the complicated nature of the application process and the qualifying criteria outlined in the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill. In order for the personal advocacy services proposals to succeed in supporting those most at risk, the DFI says that the service must respond directly to the needs of people with disabilities. As well as demanding a clear understanding of the isolated and vulnerable position of many people with disabilities, this requires that the service operators are harmonised and are an integrated part of a programme on advocacy. The DFI maintains that there is a passive nature to the proposed service and that many people with disabilities will either have difficulties in self-identifying or being identified through the system, while many others may not be deemed eligible to benefit from it. DFI considers this restrictive.

Many people with disabilities are found not only in day and residential care and training places, but also in hospitals and places of detention. Under section 7C, the personal advocate can enter premises to attend and represent the person at any meeting, consultation or discussion but would he or she be able to enter a hospital or place of detention? DFI maintains that the powers of the personal advocate must extend to any place where people with disabilities reside.

Many of those who will qualify for the personal advocacy service will not have the capacity to apply or have someone to apply on their behalf. If someone has an intellectual disability, under the Bill it appears that he or she may apply in writing under section 7B, or such other forms as specified by the Minister, to the director for the assignment of a personal advocate to him or her and he or she shall specify in the application the social service or services he or she is seeking to obtain. Are are we talking about an application form? We must make the application process as simple as possible with the service being proactive instead or reactive. It should reach out to the marginalised people who need this help.

What happens if a personal advocate giving advice, information and acting for a person with a disability makes a mistake? Is there a review process? The advocates appear to work on their own; in other cases, there would be a team effort. Will the advocate work as part of a team? If the advocate gives incorrect advice, what recourse does the person have?

It is important that the service is independent, particularly of service providers. That should be written into the legislation — we can work out the wording on Committee Stage. We must also avoid the establishment of a cartel between advocates and service providers; there should always be a distance between the two. An advocate should be fighting on behalf of a person with a disability. Advocates must also avoid downplaying the expectations of the person with the disability.

The advocate can attend and represent the person at any meeting, consultation or discussion but who decides when the meetings take place? If the person is not qualified, the meeting may not take place at all. Who notifies them of the meetings? Are they entitled to such notification?

The advocate can enter at any reasonable time any place where day care or residential care and training is provided for the person. That avoids mention of places of detention and hospitals. Who defines reasonable time? Is it the service provider? Must an appointment be made and notice given and when the advocate attends, what can he or she do? These questions were put to me by an advocate.

A statutory body or voluntary body that provides social services shall co-operate with the personal advocate in the performance of his or her duties. A person who by act or omission obstructs or hinders a personal advocate in the performance of his or her function shall be guilty of an offence and will be liable on summary conviction to punishment. Can a statutory or voluntary body be guilty of an offence? In the rest of the Bill, it states statutory bodies shall co-operate but here it mentions a "person" who obstructs or hinders an advocate. Who lays that charge?

In similar legislation, an advocate or inspector who enters a premises needs identification and is required by law to produce it. Otherwise, anyone could claim to be acting as a personal advocate for someone. It is important that it is a requirement where, if a person demands entry to a premises, he or she must have such means of identification. That provision should be added to the Bill.

Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Minister. What is the process for bringing the information to the Minister?

These questions must be teased out as we go through the Bill line by line. This is a short Bill but there is a great deal of detail in it. We are establishing an entirely new service that works with vulnerable people. We must take extra care. We must ensure we give these people a voice and that the service is proactive. The advocates must be trained and qualified to carry out their work and there should be ongoing review of their work. There is a pressing need for a comprehensive advocacy service and this Bill will provide it.

National standards of service for people with disabilities are long overdue. The delay in bringing such standards forward is inexcusable. We need them as soon as possible. There has been a long delay in putting the nursing home inspection regime on a statutory footing, an issue we have consistently highlighted on this side of the House. This breach is exceeded only by the delay in applying statutory national standards of service for those with disabilities. There is no excuse for further hesitation. It would be good to bring those standards into play now while we are establishing a personal advocacy service. The Government must be held accountable for its negligence in this area and the Minister must introduce these standards as a matter of urgency.

Did the Minister consider any other title when Comhairle's name was changed? The new title, the citizens information board, may be a little long, especially when one considers that it will deal with people who are marginalised or have intellectual or learning disabilities. I am sure if the many intelligent, ingenuous officials working in the Department put their minds to it, they will find a short, snappy, instantly recognisable title.

Branding is important and it is a good idea to bring together citizens information centres, Comhairle and Oasis. When will recruitment begin for the new body and how many staff will be appointed?

It is estimated that 400,000 people have some form of disability. How much research has been conducted into demand for personal advocacy services? Does the Department plan to expand the 18 advocacy projects operated by Comhairle?

As I indicated, a person with an intellectual disability seeking a personal advocacy must submit a written application. It is crucial that application forms, if they are required, are easy to understand. We need to avoid circumstances in which those applying for a personal advocate need an advocate to make their application or indicate the social services he or she requires. The applicant may not be aware that he or she is a qualifying person.

I welcome the provision giving a role to the social welfare appeals office. Is it possible to provide that the Ombudsman will act as a further avenue of appeal? I am not certain whether the Ombudsman's legislation covers this area or whether it would be possible to take this step, but the Ombudsman has examined and overturned decisions made by the social welfare appeals office in other areas.

Section 4 amends section 7 of the principal Act by proposing to insert a new paragraph (bb)(i), which states that the board must take account of its financial resources when deciding to provide advocacy services. It is essential that the advocacy service is adequately resourced to ensure no one is denied personal advocacy because the board cannot afford to provide it. I accept the Minister indicated that funding will not be an issue.

The sign language interpretation service for deaf people was covered by the original legislation, the Comhairle Act 2000, but it is not included in the Bill and the Minister did not refer to it. What are his intentions regarding this service? If it is not intended to establish it on a statutory basis, will it operate as another of the Department's administrative schemes? The sign language interpretation service is essential for deaf people, many of whom cannot lip-read and suffer high levels of social exclusion that are intensified by poor literacy levels caused by a lack of communication with education providers and teachers. There is a major shortage of Irish sign language interpreters for deaf people. I understand only 50 freelance interpreters serve approximately 5,000 deaf sign language users and many of these are based in the greater Dublin area. How many additional interpreters will be provided? Where will they be trained and how will they be distributed?

The Bill does not include a facility for the director of the personal advocacy service to appear before an Oireachtas committee, except in the case of accounting for funds. While an Oireachtas committee may be able to call the director before it, similar legislation on other bodies makes explicit provision for directors to appear before committees of the Houses at regular intervals.

I welcome the publication of the Bill and look forward to the Committee Stage debate. I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have raised.

See this speech in context