Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

We are all conscious that this Bill must be put through the House as quickly as possible. It has been delayed long enough. There are people depending on it and waiting for it to come into force. Not everyone will benefit from it but what is new?

The Citizens Information Bill 2006 replaces the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004. The Citizens Information Bill, like the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill it replaces, provides primarily for the introduction of a personal advocacy service for people with disability. The introduction of a personal advocacy service is a key element in improving services for people with disabilities.

People with a disability face barriers that are often impossible to surmount without help and too often those barriers are erected by people in institutions whose principal disability is selfishness. It is easier to blame the person with a disability rather than take down the barrier, blame the size of the wheelchair rather than the narrowness of the aisle and blame the person rather than remove the obstacle.

In truth, it is people with disabilities who have forced us to change our perception. I continually hear people talk about how we have changed our approach to people with disabilities. We would have the same approach and would treat them the very same way if they did not come out and insist we change our view of them and their view of the world. That is important.

The time has passed when people with disabilities could be forced to be content with whatever label we chose to pin on them, whatever pigeonhole we chose to slot them into and whatever method of charity we chose to employ to help them eke out a limited and constrained life.

For years, people with disabilities have rejected what is known as the medical model but this Government has once again reverted to it in the Disability Bill. The medical model of disability is the description that says all the disadvantages that go hand in hand with disability are caused by the disability itself. People with disabilities have been demanding instead that we accept a social model that describes disability much more according to the barriers that confront them. When one talks about this, everyone agrees, yet the medical model continues to feature in the legislation. Increasingly people with disabilities have been demanding one simple right, that is, the right to be treated as equal citizens in a republic. This is not a lot to ask for in a republic.

There are concerns over the proposed Comhairle (Amendment) Bill, published in September 2004. These relate to ensuring the most vulnerable people with disabilities can be automatically referred to a personal advocacy service without them or their families having to initiate such contact themselves; ensuring the personal advocacy service can address quality and safety issues for individuals in respect of services currently provided; expanding the application of the service to cover those who are already availing of services — for instance, it might be in the best interest of an individual to have an alternative service; and ensuring the qualifications of the personal advocate are specified in the Bill. The Minister is stating such qualifications will eventually be described, which is to be welcomed. However, when will this happen? The provision of advocacy services for individuals is very important and it is therefore important that the Title of the Bill include the word "advocacy". Why does it not? After all, the Bill addresses the issue of advocacy.

Some of these issues are addressed in the Citizens Information Bill 2006 but there are still concerns surrounding a number of elements. Advocacy, as a profession, is just developing in this country and as it develops new needs and best practices will emerge. It would therefore be sensible to provide for a review process that could commence after a reasonable period. It would usually be commenced after three to five years.

There needs to be a broad definition of the qualifications required to be a personal advocate. While such a definition is not contained in the Bill, I welcome the fact the Minister will consider it for inclusion on a future date. In this regard we also need more details regarding the number of advocates that will be appointed. Where will they be based and how many will there be? People with disabilities not only live in Dublin but also in all sorts of small places throughout the country. I accept fully that there cannot be an advocate "for everyone in the audience". This would not be necessary but advocates need to be available when required.

We must also receive assurances on the independence of the advocacy service. A very thin line exists between the service provider and client, especially where the needs of those with disabilities are concerned. Considering that service provision has heretofore been carried out by charitable institutions, the line is even more blurred in the case of people with disabilities. It is very important that there be a gap between the service provider and the client. If I have a problem with a service, I need to know the person pursuing my case on my behalf is not linked to the provider. There should be daylight between the two.

The development of advocacy services in this country is in its early stages and we need to be very careful it does not occur such that no standards apply. Standards are a major issue in the provision of services for people with disabilities. We have clearly not yet reached a sufficient standard, which always astonishes me. Given the State is the financial provider, I cannot understand why we do not demand service and standards.

A disproportionate number of people with disabilities in Ireland live in institutions as compared to those in other countries. It is important that these individuals be attended to. We need to ensure they do not have to be proactive in seeking a service and that they are attended to first. Let us determine how they feel about their living conditions. They may be extremely happy to live in institutions but, if not, we should know about it.

The power of personal advocates must be extended to all residential institutions. Section 5 states that, in order to qualify for a personal advocate, the person must prove he or she would come to some harm if he or she did not receive the service. Surely one should get the service if one needs it and can benefit from it, rather than the other way around. This should be the criterion above all others.

Deputy Carey referred to the fact that one must make an application for service in writing. If one is capable of stating in writing why one needs the service and why one would come to harm if one did not receive it, why would one need an advocate? In such circumstances, one is clearly capable of arguing one's own case. This provision is such that the service will not be as helpful as it could be. Any service of this kind should reach out rather than wait passively to be accessed. It should be very proactive.

The legislation provides that where a person with a disability is dissatisfied with a decision on his eligibility for the personal advocacy service, he will be able to avail of the services of the appeals office of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to determine his appeal. The legislation outlines the procedures to be in put in place in this regard. The Minister knows I deal frequently with the appeals section of his Department. I cannot praise it highly enough. It is incredible and independent and it takes its independence very seriously. I am glad it is involved with this Bill because I know that, on receiving cases, it will adjudicate in a very fair and practical manner. The difficulty I have is that there is now a backlog. Will more staff be employed if appeals cases arise? Such cases will probably be a little more difficult than the standard social welfare cases. Will more resources be put in place to ensure the backlog is reduced and that further difficulties will not be created for the section and the Department as a whole when the additional responsibility is taken on?

I was supposed to speak on this Bill last week but did not get an opportunity to do so because its progress through the House has been patchy. However, on hearing the Taoiseach's speech at the weekend, in which I was most interested, I was very glad I did not speak on the legislation last week, although I believe it should be dealt with as quickly as possible. The Taoiseach did not say much and made exactly the same promises he made in 2002, namely, to recruit more gardaí, solve the accident and emergency crisis etc. Given he did not deliver on those promises then, why should we believe him now? The one key point he made was on the rights of children. I find this interesting because during the debate on the Disability Bill, which is now the Disability Act 2005, Deputy Stanton and I pleaded not only with the Minister responsible, but also with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business to give rights to people with disabilities. The amazing thing is that many children have disabilities.

I was present when the Irish Human Rights Commission addressed the joint committee, which is chaired by Deputy Ardagh. When I asked why people with disabilities do not have the same rights as me, Deputy Stanton or the Minister, Deputy Brennan, I was told that such people are not considered to be equal citizens. Will the Taoiseach have the same concern for children with disabilities as he has for able-bodied children? Will they be catered for in the new referendum on the rights of children? I do not just refer to this Government when I say we are all guilty. Will children with disabilities be considered separately? Why was the Government unable to give rights to such children in the Disability Act 2005? It has suddenly decided, as we approach a general election, that it wants to protect the rights of all children. I am sure people with disabilities will not hold their breath in that regard. The Taoiseach's comments at the weekend were hypocritical when one considers he was unable to help the most vulnerable people in society, who genuinely needed such assistance.

The establishment of the personal advocacy service is welcome, but I am not sure how effective the service will be if the foundation of the edifice is not based on rights. This Bill will not oblige the Government to create any additional positions in the areas of speech therapy, occupational therapy or psychology. There will not be any extra needs assistants, care workers, teachers, doctors or nurses as a result of it. Those who access the service will immediately be affected by issues of practicability and affordability. There may be a gap between what they need and what the State is willing to give them. They need rights, but the State is not prepared to offer them those rights.

It would be remiss of me not to use this occasion to remind the Government parties of their commitment in this regard in the 2002 programme for Government. I could refer to commitments in areas like Garda resources and accident and emergency services, but we are talking about the Citizens Information Bill 2006. The Government promised in 2002 to introduce legislation based on a commitment to rights for a group of Irish citizens who have been receiving charity for most of their lives. I remind the House of the commitment in the programme for Government to "complete consultations on the Disabilities Bill" and "bring the amended Bill through the Oireachtas and include provisions for rights of assessment, appeals, provision and enforcement". That is another example of the use of the word "rights". In 2002, the Minister, Deputy Brennan, knew that people in the disability community were insisting on rights-based legislation. They did not get it, however, and we have returned to this old issue in 2006. The Government has promised to provide for rights, but I do not believe it. The commitment that was made in 2002 was not honoured, unfortunately. The legislation that was put in place did not aim to provide rights or end inequality. It perpetuates a culture of dependence and charity, in the midst of our great prosperity.

There is a substantial level of demand for the services of Comhairle and other information providers. In 2005, there were 2.5 million individual users of the Oasis website, 88,000 people called the citizens information telephone services and 734,000 queries were made to the citizens information services. We need to offer a state-of-the-art service that allows people to access information about their rights and entitlements. I have been concerned for some time about the fact, as outlined in responses to parliamentary questions, that 60,000 families are entitled to the family income supplement, but just 18,500 of them are receiving it. Some €100 million is not being claimed. I received a very good response to a comprehensive leaflet drop about this matter that I did in my constituency. If able-bodied working people in the community are in daily contact with all sorts of services, but do not know they are entitled to claim money from the State, how are people with disabilities supposed to access services? While some people with disabilities are helped by the organisations which operate on their behalf, many of them are isolated. This Bill should ensure the advocates of people with disabilities go out and speak to them, rather than sit in an office and wait for people with disabilities to come to them.

While this is a good and worthwhile Bill, the main thrust of it is wrong. The service being established cannot be passive — it must be proactive and easily accessed. No further barriers should be put in the way of people with disabilities.

See this speech in context