Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

I am sharing time with Deputy Boyd Barrett. My view is very simple. The needs of people with mental health issues and disabilities, and their loved ones, should be sacrosanct when formulating budgets. The word "cuts" should never be used for people who have a disability or a mental health issue. They have enough stress to deal with in their lives without having the additional stress of wondering about their income. Government Departments and services should be making life easier for those people, not more difficult. However, it is clear from the calls we have received and the meetings we have attended that life has become much more difficult since the transfer of assessment, review and appeals to the Department of Social Protection.

I acknowledge the work of Deputies Catherine Murphy, Richard Boyd Barrett, Thomas Pringle and Finian McGrath in bringing this very serious matter before the Dáil. Life has been made more difficult for these people because assessments are being carried out by people who do not have specialised knowledge of disability. It is also more difficult due to the appeals process and the extra expense parents must undertake to get medical evidence. It is also more difficult due to the waiting period of 38 weeks for an oral appeal.

Our motion refers to the number of successful appeals, which amounts to 52%. I am delighted those appeals were successful but one must ask why those applications were turned down in the first instance. I am sure the 52% are also delighted with their successful appeals but consider the cost to them emotionally, psychologically and even physically of having to go through that process and the extra stress and burden it imposed on them. The initial refusal must have been devastating for them. That was followed by the appeals process and the wait. I also wonder about the other 48% and how their lives are now. What were the grounds for turning down their appeals? The motion calls for decisions on applications not qualifying to state the specific reasons. Another part of the motion calls for the details of decisions, while preserving the anonymity of the applicants, to be complaint with Article 34.1 of the Constitution, which states that "justice shall be administered in public".

The Minister acknowledged that the domiciliary care allowance is an important support for people who live with and care for children with a disability. The amendment refers to the extra 2,000 recipients, the €100 million cost and the respite care grant. They sound like considerable amounts, but they are not when one looks at the overall budget for social protection. If the scheme was working as well as the Government's amendment suggests, we would not be having this debate. However, we have been hearing the opposite from the groups and the parents. They tell a very different tale.

Every expectant parent hopes for the arrival of a healthy baby but, unfortunately, life does not always turn out that way. Babies are born with a variety of disabilities, physical, mental and sometimes both. When one listens to the parents, it brings home the implications of supporting and rearing a child with a disability. There are Members of the Dáil and Seanad, as well as parents in the Visitors Gallery this evening, who have children with special needs. They know it is a 24-hour-day, 365-days-a-year task and they are lucky if they get some respite. They deal with children who have no communication skills, no concept of danger awareness, sensory deprivation and compulsive behaviours. It is interesting to listen to parents refer to themselves as warriors and stating it is like going into battle for one's child because the services are not adequate. One must fight for everything, including resource hours, special needs assistants, occupational therapy and speech and language supports. Life definitely is not being made easier for such people. I met parents yesterday for whom the story was the same. They were obliged to fight and struggle strenuously to get the resources their children needed. Members see the flaws in the system, including the diagnostic codes, the sheer bureaucracy and the delays.

On the call for the review, I add my voice to those who state the voices which must be listened to are those of the parents and groups who are actively involved with such children. In the case of a child with autism, dyspraxia or Asperger's syndrome, there is no cure and consequently their lives will not change. While they might be provided with strategies to help them to cope with life, the needs will always remain. A particular issue in this regard is that for parents who have a child with Down's syndrome or a physical disability, the condition is visible but this is not the case for autistic children and not sufficient cognisance is given to this aspect. I support the call by the Autism Rights and Equality Alliance for the Government to develop a comprehensive autism lifespan strategy for those concerned, which would eliminate the need for crisis interventions or the obligation to telephone one's public representative to get one's entitlements, because one's needs would be addressed.

See this speech in context