John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I reiterate the congratulations I already extended to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when I previously spoke on this Bill. At the time, I referred to the concept behind the Bill and outlined a few reasons why it should be implemented. Since then, I have listened to radio advertisements relating to it in particular. It has taken off to a considerable degree. As I previously stated, I agree with the change of Title. This is not because I objected to the title of Comhairle as such but because the people most affected, namely, applicants, would identify more easily with the new title of the service. Hearing the new advertisements for citizens information, it appears so logical to have this type of title that one wonders why it was not the original title for the service. It is certainly hitting all the right buttons and I wish the service well with its efforts. It has become a highly visible brand after a very short time.

I also compliment the Minister on his appointment of Chris Glennon as the new chairman of Comhairle. Mr. Glennon covered all aspects of Dáil debate for many years and I am sure he will have heard at first hand the cases put by Members of all sides of the House and issues in which he has an interest dealt with. I know he has had a lifelong commitment to those most in need and I am sure he will do an excellent job. I wish him well in his new post.

As others noted, including Deputy Hayes, the service must be fully provided for and properly resourced. I am sure this will be done because, whatever else we may say about the Minister, anything he has tackled has turned out to be a significant success against the judgment of many people at the outset. I wish him well in this endeavour.

I previously made the point that the people towards whom this service is geared are often unfamiliar with modern methods of communication, such as text messages or e-mail, and it is essential that we bear this in mind. Like others, I wonder how such a person with a case will become aware of and acquire an advocate. I am sure the Minister has already considered this. Many questions arise. Can an advocate act on behalf of a group or is it strictly one-to-one? If it is solely one-to-one, the question arises as to where we will obtain the staff to carry out this kind of work.

Reference has been made to people in institutions and elsewhere. One Deputy argued that these people were isolated from their families and friends but I wish to put on record that this is not always true. We have all heard of cases where people have been left isolated but, by and large, families, friends and voluntary groups do a marvellous job in catering for and looking after such people. That was an inaccurate description. I believe people will wish to avail of the service and there must be a way of communicating with such people. We must consider how we can inform the potential applicants at whom the service is aimed.

I am sure the Minister will pick up on the many issues raised, especially on Committee Stage. For instance, one of the EU directives on health and consumer affairs is aimed at disabled air travellers. A strict regime is now in place and if embarkation is refused a person must be offered alternatives and facilities. Will an advocate such as we are describing be in a position to act for people in such situations, especially if they have to be taken outside the State, as may be required if a case is heard in another European location?

Very often the individuals in question cannot take the case themselves as they are incapable of doing so. At times we would all benefit from having an advocate to assist us in dealing with many of the companies involved in business today. People with special needs require the assistance of someone acting on their behalf in certain situations. There was an instance of a particular airline taking advantage of people with wheelchairs. There is a need for one-to-one assistance in such cases.

The existing information services function reasonably well. Everybody is doing a particular job, for example, the citizens information centres, and they work successfully and fill a need in many areas. One of the difficulties currently is that these groups tend to work in isolation and there is a need to combine their efforts and to provide a back-up service. Under the new structure, the whole may be better than the sum of the parts.

We are all aware of how complex are rights and entitlement issues. People often struggle to find a way through the red tape and bureaucracy simply to get their entitlements. I am aware of public representatives who act as advocates. Groups such as Citizens Information sometimes give out the message that there is no need for public representatives to act in that capacity. However, there is a need for us all to act in that capacity. We all have experience of situations where people do not get their entitlements. I am not concerned about who achieves the objective of getting those entitlements. There is no conflict between us. We should work in tandem with each other. In many such cases it is a benefit to have people coming together from different angles to achieve the same end. I welcome any move towards making this process easier.

The new brand of Citizens Information will help to make people even more aware of the existing services. Many of us are illiterate when it comes to certain aspects of new technology. People take it for granted that young people will access the services for them. However, the people who need the service may be illiterate, not because they do not have the brains to learn something but because they did not have the opportunity. We must cater for them. This legislation will be a key aspect of dealing with this issue. We are all aware of how the social fabric has changed to include a multitude of difference. This has led to a significant demand for information and the need for a flexible response. A multiplicity of responses is required to include an on-line service, a phone service and a personal face-to-face service.

I am aware of a certain inflexibility in the past in the area of social welfare. Rules were interpreted strictly and this resulted in people with legitimate cases being penalised. While Ministers sometimes admitted that cases were deserving they could do nothing because the regulations left no room for leeway. I appeal to the Minister to write this legislation in such a way as to provide flexibility and discretion on the part of the director of services to make a reasoned judgment and not for him or her to be constrained by red tape. All Members will be familiar with situations which were never intended when the legislation was being drawn up. Because of the context of the Bill and who it is aimed at, the maximum amount of discretion must be available to the director.

The national disability strategy must be built around the same kind of thinking. Too often in the case of disabled drivers, or people entitled to benefits, the focus was on the letter of the law. We must ensure the legislation is as flexible as possible. I welcome the fact that so many areas in the public and social services are opening up in this integrated fashion. I also welcome the extensive funding this area has received. Despite the criticism that is collectively aimed at this side of the House, a significant amount of money has been invested in the area of special needs. I encourage others not to be critical of this approach. In 1997, less than 300 people were involved in special needs education but this figure has increased to almost 8,000 people. Because improvements have been geared towards the special needs area, especially in the primary sector in the past ten years, other educational sectors have voiced some criticism because they have not received the same benefits. While I accept other needs do exist, it is important to realise that at times one must discriminate in favour of certain groups of people.

The name change is one aspect of the legislation but its main thrust is the new personal advocacy service for people with disabilities. This gives rise to questions on the availability of staff, access to services and whether an advocate can act for more than one client. I am sure these items will be teased out. Like other Members, I have served on and chaired a health board. I accept that, in the main, the voice of these people was not heard for generations. I welcome the change which has come about through the efforts of disabled people themselves and their advocacy groups. The efforts of Oireachtas Members who have been made aware of the need must also be acknowledged. We have become much more educated in that area. At one time there was a cliché about people suffering from mental health to the effect that they did not vote or did not have a vote. That was a nasty way to consider matters. It was an extremely cynical approach and I never believed it was true. However, many people had a lack of knowledge or education on the needs that existed. That is changing rapidly. It is a good departure from the old days and long may it continue.

The Oasis website and the citizen's information service phone service function well. However, according to the figures given by the Minister, in 2005 the services were used by 3 million people. That phenomenal number shows the clear need for the service. Unfortunately, some of the services were provided in a fragmented fashion. I hope the new Bill will change that. I wish all involved well, particularly the director, the new chairman of Comhairle, Chris Glennon, and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan.

See this speech in context