Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

First, this issue is not being debated in the House this evening because of the actions of the Technical Group, Independent Members or the United Left Alliance. It is being debated because of the tremendous commitment, bravery and determination of the families themselves and their concern to vindicate the rights and needs of their children. The Technical Group Members are merely acting as their agents in bringing forward these issues. I pay tribute to the DCA Warriors and all the other families of children with disability and special needs who have forced this issue onto the agenda. Above all, I urge them to keep going, to keep protesting and to keep fighting.

I was extremely disappointed both by the Minister's speech last night and that of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, this evening because there has been virtually no acknowledgement of the desperation, frustration and anger being felt by the families of children with disability and special needs, which have forced this issue onto the agenda. As Deputy Donnelly noted, the Government amendment is disappointing and frankly disingenuous in the extreme. It implies there really is not a problem, more money is being spent, more people are in receipt of domiciliary care allowance, DCA, and while everything really is fine, the Government will have a review and will have a look at the issue. This is not good enough and it is particularly disappointing that the Government quoted figures on the absolute numbers of people in receipt of DCA and the absolute quantum of money that is spent. That is the oldest trick in the book, namely, covering up something of which the Minister of State is well aware. Moreover, it leads me to believe the Government is being disingenuous on the issue because the reason more people are in receipt of DCA and more has been spent is that each year, 10,000 additional children reach school age. As Ireland has a demographic bubble of young people coming online, therefore the demand for DCA and other supports for children with disability and special needs is increasing.

However, this simply is not the issue Members on this side have raised. The issue is whether there is a bureaucratic and cost-cutting approach to dealing with people who make applications for DCA and other supports for their children. Members, and most importantly the parents, are asking whether a stealth cut has been instructed politically from the top but which has not been announced. I refer to a bureaucratic cost-cutting measure in which people who make applications for DCA are being treated in a callous, brutal, humiliating and inhuman way when they seek supports they need, deserve and should have. Is it the case they are being put unnecessarily through further hardship, stress and humiliation because of a political decision to tighten up, cut back or to have a bureaucratic and cost-cutting approach to dealing with human beings and families who have special needs, are vulnerable and who need support, not hardship? Moreover, the figures bear this out. The point being made is that in 2009, only 25% of those who applied felt the need to appeal while in 2011, some 50% did so. The number of people who were forced to appeal has doubled in two years and has increased significantly since this Administration came to office. When one then discovers that 50% of those who then go through the arduous and difficult process of appealing actually succeed, this means that huge numbers of families are being put through such hardship unnecessarily. They should not have been forced to appeal in the first place. They needed the support but did not get it because they were dealt with badly. This is the issue and it is not addressed or acknowledged in any way by the Government amendment. As a result, families are being put through this additional hardship and humiliation, as well as the additional expense of being obliged to gather evidence to make the appeal. Moreover, people are being contacted in the context of reviews and are being asked questions like whether their child is cured even when the child in question has permanent disabilities. This is an unbelievable situation.

I will turn to what is being sought in the motion, by Members on this side and, most importantly, by the parents and families. While the Government should carry out a review, for which there is an urgent need, it should be real and the stakeholders, that is, the families themselves and the organisations representing them, must be absolutely central to such a review. However, there is no need to await the outcome of such a review to take action. Nothing in the Technical Group's motion could not be acted upon immediately by the Government, while still carrying out its review to improve the position even further. The Government could take action right now to alleviate the unnecessary hardship and suffering that vulnerable families and their children are being put through. I disagree slightly with Deputy Donnelly on the question of who is responsible. There is an old saying that the fish rots from the head and the buck stops with those at the top, namely, the Ministers and Government. I believe this is part of cost-cutting by tightening up instructions. In addition, instructions appear to have been issued either formally or informally to those working in the public health services that they no longer are allowed explicitly to recommend that people get DCA and other such supports. This appears to me like pressure for cutbacks in order to justify them. In addition, the savage staff cuts in the public service must explain the dramatic increase in outstanding appeals. Why has the number of outstanding appeals risen from one in 2009 to 900 in 2011? This unquestionably pertains to cutbacks. The Technical Group's request is very simple and the Minister of State should accede to it. If there is serious evidence from social workers or GPs that a child has needs over and above those of a child of the same age without a disability, this simply should be accepted. One can decide immediately there will be no reviews of those who have permanent disabilities, for whom no such review ever would be necessary.

The Government can also ensure that people do not have to wait 38 weeks for appeals and that resources are provided to ensure this do not happen. It can do this immediately, following which it can have its review to make the situation even better. I appeal to the Minister to do so.

See this speech in context