Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

Like other Deputies, I wish to speak briefly about this Bill. I have read the debates to date and recognised their tenor in that this measure must be seen in the context of a series of other Bills that the Minister is attempting to introduce. The context must also be seen against the background of interdepartmental co-operation. We saw a fairly graphic example of the failure of interdepartmental co-operation in the relatively simple matter referred to by Deputy Mulcahy. This case could be replicated in many other ways. I ask the Minister to address these issues either in his reply or on Committee Stage with my colleagues, Deputies Lynch and Penrose.

Like everyone else in this House, I represent a constituency. Many of my constituents regard me more as an advocate than a legislative representative. Most of the work many of us do takes the form of advocacy, whether in respect of the housing authorities or the Department of Social and Family Affairs. However, dealing with the Department of Social and Family Affairs is now an absolute delight in comparison with what it was five or ten years ago, which is to the credit of successive Ministers. This is probably because of the professionalism involved, the resources available and the efficiency of decentralisation in terms of the way in which aspects of the social welfare programme have been handled.

The Minister will recall when much of our time as public representatives was spent attempting to penetrate organisations such as the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Social and Family Affairs to get a response and, when everything else failed, putting down parliamentary questions for written reply, which gummed up the entire system. As one who has experienced the change, I am happy to say we have moved on from there.

I have some concerns. According to the Disability Federation of Ireland, there are approximately 400,000 people affected by disabilities in this country. I understand that this number does not include relatives and immediate family members. The disability area is complex and I do not purport to be in any way knowledgeable about it, other than the knowledge I gleaned through my experience in the building industry and construction standards and requirements for the accommodation of people with disabilities. In my experience, people with disabilities — some disabilities are permanent while others are of a temporary nature, such as physical injury or ageing, are the best and strongest advocates for their needs when they have the wherewithal to do so.

The second best advocates in my experience have been their immediate family, invariably a parent or a partner. It is against that background that the Minister should seriously pursue the abolition of the means testing of the carer's allowance. Deputy Penrose spoke about this in his contribution and it is a point we have made on a number of occasions, including at the time of the 2002 general election.

I acknowledge that universalism is not accepted by many people in the political establishment, particularly on the right of centre spectrum of this body politic, but the administrative costs in terms of assessing a person's means and the intrusion that involves in a person's life, who has made choices, sometimes not necessarily voluntarily, to take on the responsibility of being a carer, adds insult to injury and undermines the carer's ability to provide the kind of caring service that he or she would like to provide and which the recipient needs. I strongly suggest that the Minister addresses this issue when replying. It will be raised again on Report Stage.

The Bill is confined specifically to a name change, to changing the name of Comhairle, to which I will return, and the introduction of the concept of advocacy director. The advocacy director will assign resources to people who presumably are deemed for a host of reasons to require the full-time assistance of an advocate. The Minister might indicate when replying from where these advocates will come, how they will be selected and who will pay them. What will be the nature of the contract between them and the person for whom they will become an advocate? What will be their contractual relationship? How can they be fired if the relationship does not work out well? Who will monitor their progress in terms of a task of, say, contacting Dublin Corporation, the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Health Service Executive to secure the provision of an aid as simple as ten or 12 pieces of twisted metal with holes drilled in them to enable a person grip a rail as they climb the steps to his or her hall door?

I am not expert in this area but as a legislator these are the sorts of issues I would like clarified on Committee Stage because considerable money will be spent in this area. I have no problem with the spending of such money but I have a big problem with it being wasted. People would like to know what these advocates will do that is different from what is currently being done. In the case of people who have a communications problem, be they blind, deaf or unable to speak, I fully understand the need for such an advocate to make telephone calls or communications on behalf of such people, and such persons account for a relatively small spectrum of the total population of people who are classified as having disabilities. The Minister might clarify those points and elucidate on the body of labour who will fill these posts. Will they come from the ranks of FÁS employees who are, as Deputy Callanan referred to, assistants for people in wheelchairs? Many of the representations we receive are from people who have developed a relationship with their FÁS employee and who do not want to lose their assistant, but the employee's three years in that role are up and he or she has to move on. I accept the Minister is not responsible for FÁS, although in some respects it would not be a bad idea if there was a closer liaison between the two, but that is a debate for another time.

I want to turn to another area of advocacy for people with disabilities, to which Deputy Crowe referred. I have dealt with two cases recently of parents whose six to nine year old children were identified in the primary school system as needing educational psychological assessment. These children's teaching needs and ability to stay in mainstream education and to perform adequately was such that they required an assessment test, on the outcome of which it would be determined whether they would qualify for a special needs teacher.

I have some experience of this issue on two fronts. My wife was secretary of a board of management in a primary school for a while and this issue arose regularly. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority intervened with the 20 primary schools in its catchment area to assist them on a number of fronts. One of the areas it assisted was in helping people to get access to these tests.

The two constituency cases I have dealt with in the past four weeks were such that the school concerned advised the parents that their children must have this test because the school could not move forward without it. These are cases of intellectual disability in the area of learning. Responsibility for this area does not compartmentalise into the Minister's Department or the Department of Health and Children, but families do not compartmentalise their lives. There needs to be some linkage in the delivery of such service provision.

The children concerned got on the waiting list for the Lucena Clinic, the child centre in Orwell Road, with which the Minister is no doubt familiar, where there is a waiting list of 900 and a capacity throughput in the order of three or four per month. These children will be eligible to do their leaving certificate on the basis of that throughput. These parents do not need another advocate. I know that is not the intention of the Bill because the children concerned are not disabled in the same way as are other people with disabilities. There will be a credibility gap in public perception terms if this advocacy service is announced by way of a press release — the Minister regularly issues press releases on a Sunday afternoon, about which we read on a Monday — and in this context somebody will say "Where is the beef?"

It sounds wonderful that a person who is disabled will have an advocate to assist on his or her behalf and that this advocate will help the person get what he or she needs and that to which he or she is entitled. However, if other advocates, part-time advocates, public representative advocates and the best advocates of all, the parents of children involved who leave no stone unturned, cannot get what is required in regard to a relatively simple issue, simple in the sense that it is not complicated, namely, the carrying out of a test that a child requires, there will be a gap in perception between what is promised and what is delivered.

The Dublin Docklands Authority paid privately for the assessment of cases, which involved a cost of €200 a case. The students concerned were able to get the assessment within a matter of weeks or months, depending on the availability of the psychologist, and they were then able to get back into the education system and be taught by a special needs teacher who was required. Those children came back more on less on to the mainstream track where it was possible and feasible and got to a point where they were able to participate in mainstream education with their peers and have a reasonable prospect of an acceptable outcome.

The Minister in his reply to this debate or on Committee Stage, when these issues will be teased out by Deputies Penrose and Lynch on behalf of the Labour Party, might deal with these issues, which I would like answered so that I can advice people in my constituency on them. A number of disability organisations are located in Dublin South-East and therefore I am familiar with some of the work they do.

I want to turn to the other aspect of the Bill, the name change. I read about this in a newspaper but I did not hear the Minister's explanation for this and therefore I may be inadequate in the comments I make, or the Minister may have addressed some of them already. Why is the name change necessary? Comhairle has become its own brand. Aer Lingus is its own brand and it does not have to be translated into a descriptive name. Is this being done simply to facilitate people who do not have a knowledge of the Irish language in the sense that those of us who have gone through the system here have some knowledge of it, with the Minister having a better knowledge of it than I have? What is the thinking behind this name change? Whatever about the logic of it, the implementation of a brand change and a name change through an organisation that has the number of centres and outreach facilities that were described earlier will be substantial.

I gather from some of the comments raised by my colleagues that there is no budget yet for this change and no estimate of the cost involved. Having regard to some of the private organisations which have engaged in rebranding, name changing and all that is associated with it and given the standards we have set for ourselves, all the documentation and printed material with the old Comhairle logo will be dumped. There may be a convincing case for it, but I have not heard it. I will not prejudice my response but I will ask the question. Even if the case is convincing, it should be matched against a cost-benefit analysis which sets the value of the name change against the estimated cost and states what difference it will make.

Comhairle as an organisation is well-recognised by many citizens. The citizen advice centres which we had previously were changed. In his contribution, Deputy Boyle queried the fusion between the NRB and the old citizens advice bureaux. The changes were made by various people at different times. I may well have sat at a Cabinet table and agreed with the person who proposed it. However, its logic seems to have been unpicked and we now face this name change. In the course of the Minister's reply, will he clarify this matter if he has not already adequately addressed it?

A cost-benefit analysis must be done. The level of wastage associated with this Administration is such that people's tolerance of it is at a point where they are no longer fazed by it. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, stated the €50 million which was blown away on the voting machines is a drop in the ocean in the context of the total budget. That is the beginning of the path to hell in terms of cost overruns. The name change should not be proceeded with unless a cost-benefit analysis case can be made for it.

See this speech in context