John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports the Bill. It is important that the State moves towards a supportive legal framework for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Bill should be strengthened by ensuring that provisions are open to all in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Government needs to re-emphasise its commitment to the disability sector by bringing an end to the perverse situation where many are being re-assessed for medical cards and other cutbacks in the area. It is important to have a legal framework in place. This would be a positive step but requires a coherent and comprehensive plan if laws are to translate into positive impacts.

It is also important to accept that the Bill has some flaws and that the Government accepts amendments from this side of the House regardless of which political party they come from. I also ask the Minister of State to outline in her reply what discussions, if any, have taken place with the disability groups and groups representing the elderly such as Age Action Ireland. I have a document from Age Action Ireland expressing serious concerns about some of the anomalies in the Bill and putting forward suggestions as to how the Bill could be strengthened. It is important to talk to groups like Age Action Ireland which are at the coalface and are working on the ground with many families that have difficulties which this Bill is trying to address.

The Bill aims to update and modernise Irish law in respect of assisting those with limited intellectual capacity. It will enable greater levels of autonomy for these individuals where possible. The Bill also updates the Lunacy (Regulation) Act 1871 and creates a new flexible approach rather than a black-or-white binary division where all decisions must be entrusted rather than a hierarchy of decisions depending on importance. In strengthening the provisions of the Bill, we must ensure its provisions are open to all individuals affected. It should also broaden the number of supports available to those affected. The Bill should be reviewed after five years to ensure it is in keeping with best international practice.

It should also mark an important step towards ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an issue in respect of which there are serious problems.

As public representatives, we must intervene daily on behalf of people with disabilities. They never seem to be able to acquire their rights, particularly from the HSE. A Deputy spends most of his or her time fighting on behalf of such people to get decisions on services to which they should be entitled without ever needing to approach a politician. Unless they have health insurance, more often than not their cases are put on the long finger and they must wait ages for hospital appointments, etc. There is a lack of support for people with disabilities. It is important that these issues are addressed.

To breathe new life into the legal framework, the Government must focus on developing a coherent disability strategy. The systematic reassessment of medical cards has generated considerable fear. This shows that the people in question are the most vulnerable in society. Often they have no one to fight their cause for them. As a result, the Government of the day takes the easy option of cutting back and reassessing their entitlements.

The issue of the wards of court fund has been raised with me by many people since the Bill was printed. The fund has been poorly invested and a pressing area of concern that has been raised constantly by several parents is the lack of transparency in its investment. Families are deeply concerned that investments have gone awry and that the money put aside, usually as a result of a settlement, has been squandered by high-risk investments. Wards have no say in the kinds of investment used by the fund. They also have no access to financial statements beyond rudimentary facts that have to be specifically sought rather than sent out as a matter of course as any normal investment fund would do. Wards are justifiably concerned that the losses sustained by the fund are not being regained, leaving them exposed to insurmountable financial hurdles in the future. They have also raised significant fears about the levels of professional fees being exacted from the fund and the lack of oversight and transparency in that aspect of the process. I have often heard the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, who has arrived, discuss openness and transparency. There is a major concern about this fund, how it operates, the level of transparency and the types of investment made.

In this context, people regularly raise another issue with me. If a ward of court needs financial assistance, the level of bureaucracy involved makes it almost impossible for a guardian to get money from the fund to cover hospital and other costs. It takes months. While I accept that money cannot be paid out willy-nilly, it should be freely available following a genuine application.

The Bill provides a range of supports on a continuum of intervention levels, for instance, decision-making assistance, co-decision making, decision-making representation and informal support, in order to support people in maximising their decision-making capacity. These supports should be expanded to encompass all affected persons and backed up by real resources.

The Bill establishes an office of public guardian within the Courts Service, with supervisory powers to protect vulnerable persons. This office needs to be properly resourced to ensure its role in expanding decision-making powers is effectively implemented. When the Minister of State replies, he might outline how this office will work and the number of people who will work in it. For example, will it be a legalistic office or open and transparent? How will it be established? While openness and transparency are important, it is also important that there is a certain amount of flexibility when dealing with the family of a person who is a ward of court.

I could outline the cutbacks to the health services, including services for people with disabilities, for example, the respite grant. However, the important issue is that this Bill is effective legislation and of help to wards of court. For this reason, the Minister of State should consider taking on board positive amendments from this side of the House.

I mentioned Age Action Ireland because I received an e-mail from Mr. Eamon Timmins, who happens to be a Wexford man and the head of advocacy and communication for Age Action Ireland Limited. He outlined a number of areas of concern in the Bill. He believes the Bill needs to strengthen its provisions for making unwise decisions once the consequences are understood. Age Action Ireland fears that the Bill's provisions are vague in this regard. Mr. Timmins also referred to how older people were particularly vulnerable to abuse in their homes, often at the hands of relatives. A misuse of the Bill's provisions for restraining an individual can lead to an abject abuse of power. The Bill allows informal decision makers to use restraints where necessary. Unlike the co-decision makers or decision-making representatives, the office of the public guardian will not review the actions of the informal decision makers. In Mr. Timmins's opinion, these powers need to be removed from that group immediately. Perhaps the Minister of State will refer to some of Age Action Ireland's concerns when replying. Age Action Ireland also asks that the Bill guarantee fast access to free legal aid for vulnerable groups. We all know that free legal aid is slow and cumbersome and there is a long waiting list for the service.

Other than these concerns, Age Action Ireland welcomes the Bill and views it as a move in the right direction, but one that could be improved dramatically on Committee Stage by implementing some of the changes suggested by it and a number of disability groups. I welcome the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is listening and will accept amendments from this side of the House.

See this speech in context