Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate and espouse the view of the Labour Party on this important, welcome and long awaited legislation. My party will make every effort to facilitate the speedy passage of the Bill, an integral part of the national disability strategy.

The Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 set out to introduce a personal advocacy service for people with disabilities. The content of that legislation has been incorporated, with significant amendment, into the broader Bill before us. The Disability Federation of Ireland has been in contact with a number of Members, including me, seeking to ensure that various aspects of the legislation are improved and the Labour Party intends to propose such amendments. I note the Minister indicated that suggestions made by the legislative consultative forum will be considered prior to Committee Stage. It is important that all sides show openness to ensure that the best interests of the 400,000 people who have one form of disability or another are addressed in the Statute Book. The Legislature is the forum in which Members act as advocates for those whom they represent and are given an opportunity to suggest improvements to legislation on their behalf.

The Bill replaces the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004. Comhairle was the successor agency to the National Services Board. The Bill changes the focus of the new agency replacing Comhairle, the citizens information service, and the services it will provide. I note also that the new body will be decentralised to Drogheda. As a statutory agency, the citizens information service will come within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The original remit of the body was to support the provision of information, advice and advocacy on social services and ensure access to these services. The new body will support the provision of information to the public through three information channels, or "strands" as they were described by the Minister, namely, the Oasis website, the citizens information phone service, CIPS, and a nationwide network of 235 to 240 offices of the citizens information service, CIS. One of these channels, the Oasis website, is administered directly by the organisation, while the CIS and CIPS are delivered by independent voluntary bodies.

Deputy Stanton, who is more technologically minded than me, found the various statistics useful. The Oasis website, for example, counted 2.5 million individual users, while the citizens information phone service received 88,000 calls and the citizen information centres logged 734,000 queries. Between 2003 and 2005, use of the Oasis website and CIPS, both comparatively new services, increased by 144% and 113%, respectively. In the same period, use of the citizens information service centres increased by 30%.

Essentially as an add-on, the agency was subsequently given a statutory commitment to assist and support people with disabilities in identifying and understanding their needs and options and accessing their entitlements to social and civil services. The original intention was that the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 would further strengthen the role of Comhairle in providing personal advocacy services to adults and children with disabilities as they seek to access disability specific and mainstream services. It appears an alternative route has been taken in that the original citizens advice remit is being strengthened while disability is being relegated to an add-on status. We must continue to focus on the disability sector and ensure the necessary services are provided.

At best, the Minister is trying to ride two horses because the Citizens Information Bill has two central themes — on the one hand, the development and expansion of an advocacy service for people with a disability and, on the other, a name change that will give public expression to the link between the national body and citizens information services nationwide. I hope he does not fall between the two.

Comhairle admits that the remit in respect of advocacy services for people with disabilities, as set out in the Citizens Information Bill, will "be rolled out as resources permit". That is the first warning. There are important issues here. One is the independence of the service; it must not be subject to external interference. I always worry when I see that the hand of the Minister of the day will be the overlay. It is important that the service is not impinged upon or subject to interference so as to diminish its independence. However, the phrase "as resources permit" is the huge financial constraint placed upon the ability of the service to be provided in a wholesome, proper way. That concerns me.

There will be a cost, and I raised this last April. Why must we go to all the bother of rebranding? There will be financial costs in terms of working hours associated with the national rebranding campaign for a service that already exists. It is being strengthened but the main service already exists. Will it cost €500,000, €1 million or €1.5 million? Nobody knew last April. Has any research been conducted in the meantime? There is a new logo to replace the clasped hands, the current emblem of the citizens information service. Have we reached that point? Obviously an agency will be or has been appointed to deal with the rebranding. I am concerned about this, given the profligacy of this Government in spending money without examining the cost benefit.

This money would be better spent on additional services rather than inserting some qualifying condition or prohibition clause in the Bill whereby everything is subject to resources and the say of the Minister. Last April, the Government did not have a clue how much money would be involved in this exercise. The money should be spent on the advocacy service and ensuring that the maximum number of services will be provided for the maximum number of people.

Not everybody in Comhairle was happy that there would have to be a name change. Whose idea was it? The Minister will say it is widening the service and making it more accessible and identifiable for immigrants and people with different languages. That is a point and I will not be churlish or petulant about it. However, I wonder at the penchant for spending significant amounts on money on matters such as logos and the like, which are not a major necessity.

Comhairle has been doing tremendous work. It is an important body. With regard to the personal advocacy service, I must refer to the carers. I have long espoused and articulated their cause; nobody can deny that I have always been a strong and forceful advocate of their cause. The application form for carer's allowance is mind boggling. There is no need to ask people, in effect, how many spoons of sugar they have in their tea. I detest that type of detail.

I listened yesterday to Derek Mooney's radio show on RTE 1 between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. I must pay tribute to him. For the first time I heard a public broadcaster say — he obviously did not know that the Labour Party has always advocated the universality of carer's allowance — that the means test should be abolished. He advocated it strongly. The person to whom he was speaking was obviously in the citizens information centre and could not express a view on policy, only implement it. Derek Mooney is a radio presenter of note and has a major time slot on the airwaves but he did not know that the Labour Party had advocated this move. That is probably a failure on our part but it is also a failure of the general media to ensure that people are aware of these things.

It would cost €180 million to pay the other 100,000 people who provide necessary care, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. They did get some help from the Minister, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge it, in terms of respite care. Unfortunately, people must wait for considerable periods to avail of respite care, something to which they should be entitled. There should be a free flowing and streamlined system in place. People need this to survive. Sometimes they end up with more severe health difficulties than the people for whom they are caring.

We should not be putting blockages and hurdles in their way. In that context, there must be simplicity in anything that will be dealt with under this legislation. It should not become a morass of form filling. Access to the personal advocacy service must be free flowing and not become a morass of hurdles, as often happens. It is time to simplify the application form for carer's allowance. It is difficult enough being a carer.

Everybody subscribes to the importance of people being allowed to remain in their homes. I strongly advocate it. People are more content there. The cost of nursing homes is so prohibitive that we cannot turn a blind eye to it. There is already a cost with subventions. The €180, or €200 if the person is over a certain age, is a small cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer for providing a service that is so important to so many people and which gives people comfort in their home environment, where they feel most content. Simplicity will be most important in this area.

When somebody feels aggrieved by the decision made, it is important that there is an appeals mechanism. I subscribe to Deputy Stanton's view that the Ombudsman should have a role in this area. It would be no harm to give the Ombudsman this remit. The social welfare appeals office works extremely hard to deal with a huge number of appeals. The independence of the office is acknowledged and is essential in ensuring that people get a fair deal under the social welfare system. If they feel aggrieved, they can access an independent appeals office.

However, sometimes one is obliged to wait three months or more for an appeal to be heard. If there will be more appeals as more people have their applications for the intervention of a personal advocate turned down, what steps will the Minister take to ensure there will be more independent appeals officers under the chairman of the chief appeals office? There must be an increase in the number of appeals officers. Otherwise, the system will become bogged down. I am glad that the chief appeals officers will have a role. It gives one greater confidence in the system if there is an independent appeals process but it is important that the appeals are heard quickly, so justice can be administered swiftly. People can then be confident that if they are entitled to something, the decision will be made quickly. That is most important.

A number of months ago, the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, responded to the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 by way of presentation to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. The DFI raised a number of issues it wanted to be addressed. The first of these was the provision of a review mechanism in respect of the operation of the legislation and the second was the establishment of a comprehensive advocacy remit for a director of advocacy within Comhairle. There is a significant difference between what the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has included in the Citizens Information Bill and what was requested by the DFI, namely, the appointment of a director of advocacy within Comhairle whose remit would extend to cover the overall advocacy function within that organisation. The third issue highlighted by the DFI was the need for access to and participation in the personal advocacy service among people with disabilities.

The Minister has introduced the Citizens Information Bill, which was to have been brought forward before the summer recess. One can understand why that did not happen, however, because significant legislative and policy developments took place during the summer months. Only last month, for example, the provisions of the Disability Act 2005 finally came into play. In addition, the social partnership programme, Towards 2016, was brought forward in recent months. The latter includes mechanisms to progress Government commitments under the national disability strategy. One of those commitments was to establish an advocacy service for people with disabilities. In particular, Towards 2016 states that legislative provision for the introduction of the new personal advocacy service will provide for the assignment of a personal advocate to a person with a disability who is unable to obtain or who has difficulty in obtaining a social service without the assistance or support of the personal advocate. It states that this will complement, in a balanced way, the other advocacy and support functions of Comhairle in relation to people with disabilities.

In fairness, this is a first step and it was easy for the Government to include it in this legislation, which was formerly the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004. It is well recognised that officials of the Minister's Department worked hard during the summer and engaged with the disability legislation consultative group. As a result of that work, the Minister made a commitment that some legislative provision would be framed on Committee Stage and that the citizens information board would follow up, in a proactive way, the cases of people who are particularly vulnerable and who may need personal advocates in circumstances where such cases are brought to its attention. That is extremely important, particularly in light of people's tendency to throw up their hands and state that a matter cannot be progressed further. If, however, a Member of these Houses brought a case to the attention of the citizens information board, it is important that it should be in a position to follow up on his or her concerns in order that people's rights and entitlements will be protected and pursued. The board must operate as an active participant to ensure that such rights are vindicated.

The Minister received a great deal of assistance over the years in respect of the development of the advocacy service. The report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which was published in 1996, and the disability legislation consultative group's document, Equal Citizens, which was published in 2003, clearly outlined the need to develop an independent advocacy agency. Towards 2016 underlines the glaring need for such a service. What must come next is a legislative framework that will offer people with disabilities the right to a full range of independent advocacy services that will assist people to access public services. Equal Citizens, the report of the disability legislation consultative group, indicates that there is a need for advocacy services to provide training for people with disabilities in advocacy, as well as supports for parents and families regarding their role as advocates. This recommendation is essential.

The three documents to which I refer, including Towards 2016, clearly outline the requirements of a holistic and successful advocacy service which will underpin any framework for advocacy proposed through legislation. That is what we must try to achieve and it is the objective on which we must focus as we commence our deliberations.

Deputy Stanton stated that the DFI and others have indicated that they have some concerns regarding the introduction of the personal advocacy service as set out in the Bill. It would be foolish and somewhat ostrich-like of us to ignore such concerns because they have been raised by people who operate at the coalface. The DFI set out its concerns in a previous submission on the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill, particularly in respect of the need to introduce timely review mechanisms. It is important that every three, four or five years a review mechanism should be triggered. Section 6 of the Disability Act 2005 provides a review mechanism and it is important that the Bill before us, particularly because it relates to people with disabilities, should also make such provision. It would be prudent, wise and useful to build in a review mechanism that would be triggered after a reasonable period, be it two, three, four or five years. It is important that there is some evaluation or assessment that will indicate the level of progress that has been made and highlight whether there is a glaring need for a change to be made in respect of any aspect of the advocacy service we are about to put in place on a statutory basis. Such a mechanism is important because it will provide the only means by which the service will be successful.

The DFI indicated that the personal advocacy service proposed in the Bill will fall significantly short of people's expectations and that the establishment of the service will not, in itself, secure the development of a comprehensive programme of advocacy for people with disabilities. It also highlighted the importance of Comhairle's existing work on advocacy, in respect of which provision is made in section 7(1) of the Comhairle Act, which states:

(1) The functions of the Board shall be——

(a) to support the provision of or, where the Board considers it appropriate, to provide directly, independent information, advice and advocacy services so as to ensure that individuals have access to accurate, comprehensive and clear information relating to social services and are referred to the relevant services, In other words, the DFI is saying that the critical and important advocacy work carried out by Comhairle under section 7(1) of the Comhairle Act must complement that of the personal advocacy service. Together, these services must provide an integrated and comprehensive system of advocacy for people with disabilities.

Section 4 of the Citizens Information Bill proposes to introduce changes to section 7(1)(b) of the Comhairle Act and to add several subsections to the section. It would be foolish of the Minister to miss the opportunity afforded him in the Bill to put in place a holistic advocacy programme which will link all Comhairle's work in the area of advocacy and of which the new personal advocacy service will be a new, exciting, important and integral part.

We should give some consideration to the proposal that a director of advocacy be appointed to give effect to all of the advocacy and support functions in Comhairle as they relate to people with disabilities. Will the proposed director of personal advocacy services, included in section 7A(6) and (8), be sufficient? Will he or she have the opportunity to oversee the various advocacy and support functions of Comhairle? We should look at this and if the Minister does not support it, he should explain why not on Committee Stage.

Any changes that are made in this Bill should be clear and transparent. How will a personal advocacy service enhance existing programmes through Comhairle and the community and voluntary sector? How will they interact and integrate? It is important that Comhairle continues its work and that there is an integrated delivery of these advocacy services and programmes can be supported.

The power of entry is outlined in section 7D(2) of the Bill. It states:

A personal advocate assigned to a qualifying person under this Act may, for the purpose of performing his or her functions, at any reasonable time enter any place where day care, residential care or training is provided for the person and make such inquiries in such place in relation to the person as he or she considers appropriate. That appears to be a fairly comprehensive definition of a personal advocate's power of entry. I believe that we should welcome the extension of that power because it enables personal advocates to link with service settings that are currently providing a service to a qualifying person. However, we should examine the places in which people with disabilities are found. They are not just found in day care, residential care or training locations. They are also found in places of detention, such as hospitals. We must ensure that power of entry afforded to personal advocates extends to any place in which people with disabilities reside. It is extremely important that it is not curtailed in any way. Wherever a person with a disability resides, a personal advocate should have the power of entry to deal with that person and advocate his or case having obtained the relevant information.

The Minister is being skimpy with the resources provided under the Bill. I concur with Deputy Stanton's point about the sign language service. The current sign language services should be extended on a nationwide basis. The mechanism used to implement the services, be it through technology or training, should also be extended nationwide.

I support the broad thrust of the Bill and I look forward to debating it on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context