John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on disability issues. I wish to raise a number of specific issues. Previous speakers referred to the mental capacity legislation which was promised for years by the previous Government and has been promised by this Government since it came to office. It is included on the A list of Bills to be introduced on the legislative programme. I add my voice to that of others who have urged the Government to introduce this legislation as soon as possible. The current legislation in the area predates the foundation of the State and the Act of Union. It is an area where the laws of the land are antiquated and need to be brought into the 21st century. I hope the Government can introduce that legislation as soon as possible.

I welcome the commitment in the programme for Government to examine the funding of disability issues with particular emphasis on providing a cost of needs payment to the disabled person rather than the position that has pertained up to now where block grants were paid to bodies which provide services. It is important and correct that individuals and families would be in a position to decide for themselves what services best suit their situations. I hope that can be implemented as soon as possible.

The area of autism is one that is close to my heart. My nephew is severely autistic and I am conscious of the roles of special needs assistants in classrooms in particular. I have found it puzzling that their role is very much confined to one of caring and addressing the care needs of the child in question. The role should be broader than that. The Minister of State might outline her position on the role of special needs assistants within our the education system.

I wish to raise the issue of domiciliary care allowance and the position that has pertained in recent months where many recipients have had entitlement to it removed in an arbitrary fashion in some cases. I and I am sure many other Deputies have been presented with cases by people who previously had this allowance who have had it withdrawn. There does not seem to be any logic to some decisions that have been made. There have been some abuses of the domiciliary care allowance scheme in that some people who should not have been receiving it were receiving it. It is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut to require a significant number of people, who I believe qualify for the allowance and should be in receipt of it, to have to appeal a decision to refuse them an allowance they had up to now. Furthermore, the appeals process can take up to 12 months. Other ancillary benefits such as the carer's allowance come in conjunction with the domiciliary care allowance. It is unacceptable that people in those positions are being forced to fight for their rights in an appeals process where there is a logjam and where it may take up to 12 months to complete when ultimately, in many cases, they are entitled to this payment. I have come across several such cases.

I know the difficulty that my brother and his wife have had over many years in trying to receive adequate care and educational provision for their son and the pressure that has been put on them and on other families I know in my area. It is unacceptable that in many cases people who are already stressed to the hilt in trying to get basic educational provision for their children have had their domiciliary care allowance removed. In terms of trying to remove the abuses that exist in the system, we should not end up making victims out of people who are already under pressure, suffering and who have already struggled to get basic rights to which they are genuinely entitled. Some practices in regard to applications for the domiciliary care allowance that have been presented to me in my constituency are unacceptable. I hope there will be much more flexibility and understanding and also a much more evidence-based approach. I am familiar with three cases in Kilkenny in which domiciliary care allowance was withdrawn from families, despite the fact that the requirement for care had been certified by local GPs. That is not acceptable. If a decision is to be made, it must be made on evidence. However, I do not see in many of these cases that there is sufficient evidence to justify removing the allowance from families that have been in receipt of it. I hope an approach that is more flexible but also realistic and evidence-based can be adopted for the future. The appeals mechanisms for various benefits are already in a logjam and waiting times for appeals are far too long. To lob in extra claims for domiciliary care allowance, many of which will be granted, to what is already a delayed process is completely unacceptable.

See this speech in context