Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Citizens Information Bill 2006, as it is one of the major strands of the national disability strategy. It is meant to establish a personal advocacy service, operated by the Citizens Information Board, to assist people with disabilities in accessing health and social services. It will support in particular groups such as the National Disability Authority, NDA, and Inclusion Ireland. It is clear that advocacy services for people with disabilities are underdeveloped in Ireland. Those providing services, including community volunteers are becoming increasingly aware of the need for more services. The 2004 Comhairle report, Developing an Advocacy Service for People, showed that Ireland still has a significant population of people with disabilities resident in institutions. Perhaps this Bill will create a greater awareness of that.

An independent advocacy service is essential if people with disabilities are to be fully included in the process of service provision. This was discussed during the debate on the disabilities Act. This will give people with disabilities, who may be unable to seek services for the themselves, an opportunity to put forward their views and requests on the range of services they receive. In this regard, the definition of social service as outlined in the Bill, is to be welcomed.

The whole issue is certainly important, but it must be made clear where the services are to be based and who will benefit. I think about a young neighbour of mine with cerebral palsy; while there are excellent services for someone like this in Dublin, the problem lies in getting there. Once there, the person will receive all the necessary help to get back to the bus, train or whatever. It is all right if someone has the finance or wherewithal to travel to these centres but it is important to emphasise that although the service may be based in Dublin, it should be available for all. Another issue concerns the fact that the service must be applied for by each individual in writing. We must realise that some people cannot do this for themselves and therefore they must receive all the support and advice that is available. We must ensure that everyone entitled to services derives benefit from them.

In the last few days we have heard a good deal not just about the disabled, but also the elderly. I cannot help thinking about the Leas Cross situation and, unfortunately, others. I wonder how matters will be dealt with or whether the advocacy service in years to come will be the subject of ministerial excuses, as at present, with regard to systems failure. That term absolutely frightens me, because we have seen what happened at Leas Cross through the "Prime Time" programme and the information that has come out since. Nobody is being held responsible. Nobody is facing any career handicap as a result, in terms of finance, change of post or whatever. As someone from a farming background, I find this impossible to understand. If we are to treat the issue of disability, the elderly and all that in an even-handed manner, we must ensure that those in charge are held responsible and, if they are not doing their job, treated accordingly.

I met a farmer today from County Monaghan, who has a disability. He was not fit to fill in the forms for himself. He was dependent on the advisory service set up by this State to look after him. When forms arrive late it is he who suffers, not the Teagasc adviser or that organisation. I had another case, last week, of a widow in a similar situation. She has received her bill for €3,300, but is not getting any funds. I raise these matters in the light of this issue of "systems failure". It is much too simple a phrase, and much too serious when we are dealing with the elderly and disabled. I want to ensure that when this Bill goes through the House, that Deputy Brennan, as the Minister in charge, will ensure we are not back here in two or three years time or whatever, talking about some disabled person who has fallen through the cracks because of systems failure. That to me is extremely important.

We must also have a safe service. Only last Thursday the Oireachtas Members from my constituency, which of course includes the Ceann Comhairle, met the Minister for Health and Children, along with all the councillors for the area. We had to listen for two hours to talk about safe systems. It all depends on one's viewpoint. We have seen 17 deaths as the result of safety failure in the services being provided for disabled and older people in particular. I am thinking of one family who lives 500 m from Monaghan General Hospital, a father, a mother and a disabled daughter. The father got a heart attack and died on his way to Cavan hospital, leaving his ill wife and his handicapped daughter. The Almighty has been good, taking all three of them in a short period. Who decides what is safe and what is not? We must ensure people feel safe when systems such as this are introduced.

Care of the disabled is important in respect of this Bill. As a former member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, I discussed this situation at length, but problems continue. I recently encountered an aged person to whom a carer's allowance was not made available because the doctor could not fill in the right boxes to demonstrate need for full-time care. There is no way anyone would allow the person to remain in the house alone. We need a common-sense approach, ensuring the maximum number of people, whether elderly or disabled, remain in their homes for as long as possible.

At some time during his brief appearance in the House the Taoiseach referred to the threefold increase in the home care packages. While this is not directly under the control of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, it is connected to the care of the elderly and the disabled. We find the situation totally different on the ground. As Oireachtas Members we receive more representations about securing care for elderly people than any other issue. People only realise the complications when confronted with sickness or disability. There is system failure in the case of someone with an amputated leg who received 12 hours of home help in Donegal and who experienced a reduction to two hours of home help when he moved to Carrickmacross, County Monaghan. It took me a long time to trace this case to discover whether the person was on the register.

If this Bill is to be successful, proper use must be made of the home help and home care systems. Great people are undertaking great work but they are curtailed by lack of funding or understanding from more senior people. The personnel in the Department will be surprised if I do not mention the carer's allowance and the method of payment. Over past years, including the era of the Celtic tiger, we have failed to provide a structure whereby an old age pensioner or a widow can receive carer's allowance. This is crazy. If the person is in receipt of a contributory widow or widower's pension, he or she can work full time and it will not affect the pension. However, if the person is capable of caring for a parent or disabled child in the home, the person is only entitled to one social welfare payment. If I can persuade the Minister to re-examine this situation in advance of the budget, I may have done someone some good.

If one is caring for two people, he or she can claim 100% of the carer's allowance for one person and 50% for the other. Can we not ensure that if one is caring for one person and in receipt of a contributory or non-contributory social welfare payment, one is entitled to at least 50% of a carer's pension for keeping someone out of a retirement home? Achieving this would be a job well done and would be recognition of the job carers are doing.

I wish to raise another matter that is not relevant to this Bill but which concerns citizenship. Some months ago I came across a couple who have lived in Ireland for seven years. They are entitled to citizenship, which is important to them. The man is a labourer in a local factory, the woman is a part-time carer attached to Monaghan General Hospital and they have three children attending university. The couple must pay €7,500 in fees because the application for citizenship has not been processed. The fees do not include maintenance costs. The Taoiseach states that we should not compare ourselves to others but if these people lived in Northern Ireland or Britain, the application would have been processed in five to seven months. They see the comparative disadvantage in Ireland. They wish to remain in Ireland, having established it as their home. I will raise this matter with the Minister's colleagues and have already written to some of them. It is a serious disadvantage.

I could have said much more if I had time to study the Bill at length. I welcome the provision whereby the social welfare appeals office and the Ombudsman will play a role. The social welfare appeals office is useful in other cases. Problems still exist for disabled people. There has been an increase in funding but in my home area there is a major problem with respite. The amount of respite space is limited.

It is good when parents are lucky enough to receive €1,250, or whatever the sum is now, as a respite grant towards relief from being carers. However, if they are to get away for a break of a week, ten days or a fortnight from looking after a disabled person, it is extremely important for them to have somewhere they can trust and where they know the person will be safe and cared for. In the main, a single unit in Cootehill caters for counties Cavan and Monaghan. I urge that this area be looked after very seriously. Most families today want to look after their handicapped members at home. That said, the north Monaghan carers group has done a tremendous job. It has now established nine or ten home units, each housing five or six people. This is fantastic and at least people who are approaching the end of their days know that their loved ones have somewhere to go and be cared for.

I have spoken to Mr. Dan Grogan about this and he has asked me publicly a number of times to try to see whether, through the health boards or some other means, an effort can be made to ensure that sufficient respite places are available. He has informed me that up to 70 families require respite to be able to take some holidays. Obviously, if the beds were allocated over a period, that number of bed spaces would not be required. However, it gives some indication of the scale of the problem in one part of a single constituency. The Minister should examine this issue seriously.

Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputy Callanan.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this Bill and the Minister to the House. I thank him for the Government's commitment to both the Bill and the entire national disability strategy. The Minister will agree that any society should be judged on the manner in which it treats those who are less fortunate or more vulnerable than others, such as the elderly, children and people with disabilities. While Ireland is coming from a low base, much has improved and hopefully much more will improve in future.

I believe that, when enacted, the Citizens Information Bill will provide a valuable tool to people with disabilities. For the first time, they will have access to dedicated professional personal advocates, who will be able to represent them before all the institutions of the State and to ensure they receive all their entitlements. This is a welcome step forward. In recognising this, I also wish to recognise those volunteers who provided such a service for years, possibly on an ad hoc or voluntary basis, in a quiet and unsung manner. I hope they will continue to be involved in such an important area of activity.

It is important that the personal advocates are well trained. While there may be some provision for it in earlier legislation, the Bill itself does not go into great detail regarding the training of personal advocates. They should undergo a rigorous training procedure in order that they can both properly represent their clients and be professional with a complete knowledge of the range of services available to people with disabilities.

My second point pertains to the definition of disability. I understand it has been debated for a considerable time and I have no problem with the definition before the House. Does this definition include elderly people who are infirm? I refer to those who are not actually sick but who may be in their late 80s or 90s. If one considers the definition before the House, such people might well qualify. I suggest that infirm people in their late 80s or 90s are people with a restriction in their capacity "to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reason of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment".

I hope the Minister understands my point because, from time to time, many elderly people genuinely require an advocacy service that is almost on a similar basis to that for people with disabilities. The emphasis should be on achieving results on the ground. There is no point having many personal advocates if results are not achieved. I will provide some practical examples. In my constituency, elderly people or those with a disability who need a simple handrail in their house can face a wait of between six months and two years before an occupational therapist is sent by the Health Service Executive. Thereafter, it can take two to three years before the installation of the handrail in question. This is ridiculous and I draw the attention of the House to this issue. I do not make a political point in this regard and hope for cross-party acknowledgment of this issue.

The system for handrails is farcical and it should not take four years to install one. It should be a simple matter in which, for example, a general practitioner certifies that a handrail is required and a quick and easy method of installing one is undertaken. I ask the Minister to become involved in this matter as a bureaucratic quagmire between the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Health and Children appears to be in operation. Results are not being achieved on the ground. There is no point having personal advocates to state that a person needs a handrail if it takes four years to install.

Much progress has been made, certainly in Dublin, and many bus routes have switched to being accessible to the disabled. I recently helped to secure such a route in Ballyfermot. However, many routes in Dublin are not yet accessible to the disabled and a deadline should be imposed. I ask the Minister to liaise with the Minister for Transport in this context and to state that, within two to three years, all modes of public transport in Dublin city will enable access to the disabled. When I succeeded in introducing such a bus route to Ballyfermot, I met someone who had not left home for ten years because they were alone and in a wheelchair which could not be brought on to a bus. This is not acceptable in any civilised society.

While I am in favour of personal advocates, there must be real change. In the area of public transport — the Minister is interested in this issue himself — small changes can have a major impact. The Luas is disabled access-friendly and is a great success, as are many other modes. However, regarding the buses, both in Dublin and nationwide, CIE, Bus Éireann and anyone who supplies bus services in this State should be informed that a deadline of two to three years has been imposed, after which all buses must be accessible to the disabled. This is what I mean by results on the ground.

I welcome the change of name from Comhairle to the Citizens Information Board, which is a good idea. Much more action is required to deal with practical issues. I am also glad the Bill contains several appeal mechanisms as some people who may be turned down will be unhappy about it and consequently will wish to lodge an appeal.

While the Government's budget in this regard has been increasing exponentially, this work must continue. As I noted at the outset, one measures the quality of civilisation within a society by how it helps those who cannot help themselves. This is a tremendously important area. We cannot simply say that every problem will disappear with the introduction of personal advocacy personnel. There must be a parallel track approach. The changes on the ground must be paralleled by changes in the law and in enforcement procedures. I look forward to the day when we can stand up and say we are at the top of the league in Europe in terms of the way we help people with disabilities.

Attitudes have undoubtedly changed for the better in Ireland. Resources have also changed and the number of people with disabilities involved in all aspects of society has increased considerably. The older attitudes appear to be dying out but there is much more to be done. We should be very ambitious in this regard. We are increasing our overseas aid budget significantly, a move I support, and I hope we are now significantly increasing the funding available to disability groups. I very much support the Bill. I thank the Minister for putting it before the House and wish him every success on its successive Stages.

Joe Callanan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this Bill which provides for a high quality, consumer-focused integrated information service on all aspects of social and civil services to assist people in securing their rights and entitlements. It provides for the drawing together of three separate existing channels of information under one clearly visible and easily accessible brand name, citizens information. It provides for the delivery of a one-brand citizens information service through more than 230 citizens information centres, the Internet and a single telephone number and the harnessing of new emerging technologies to further improve and expand the availability of information. It delivers a commitment to increasing funding to allow the new citizens information board to increase, improve and expand information services and additional funding for the development and facilitation of advocacy services which will provide for the assignment of a personal advocate for persons with disabilities to assist them in overcoming barriers to full participation in society.

The Bill provides for the appointment of a director of personal advocacy services who will be responsible for the management and control of the service and arrangements for an independent appeals process if the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision regarding his or her eligibility for the assessment of a personal advocate. It provides for the undertaking of nationwide high profile information and awareness campaigns by the citizens information board on specific social services and welfare issues and an increased and targeted emphasis on the provision of a clear and accessible information for all immigrants in respect of their rights, entitlements and supports.

This Bill will make people with disabilities aware of their rights to different schemes, such as the disabled person's grant which is administered by local authorities and provides for alterations to dwellings, such as a downstairs bedroom and en-suite bathroom and central heating, for suitable applicants. The motorised transport grant provides an allowance towards the cost of adapting a car to suit a person with a disability. The Bill will put a strong onus on all local authorities to ensure that wheelchair-accessible footpaths are constructed to make all public places more accessible.

I compliment the Government on taking seriously the funding of facilities for people with special needs, but there is much more to do. We must ensure that residential and respite care is available to people when they need it. The major question in the minds of elderly parents with a son or daughter with special needs is who will look after their child if anything happens to them. We must assure these people that the necessary facilities will be in place and ensure that there are special education facilities as many children with special needs can do extremely well at school. We must ensure that people with disabilities are allowed to take up employment if they so wish. There is a reluctance among employers to employ people with disabilities, which we must get over. This reluctance may be related to insurance and other matters but the Government must ensure that employers employ people with disabilities who want to work.

I compliment the Minister on his work in respect of carers because this issue is very much tied up with disability issues. The discarding of €580 of income means that many more people can now receive the carer's allowance. When people came to our clinics years ago and asked us whether they would qualify for the carer's allowance, we had to politely and gently inform them that there was no way they would qualify for it. A considerable number of people who now attend our clinics receive the carer's allowance.

The Irish Wheelchair Association has lobbied us from time to time to mainstream the employment of their carers. Most of its people are employed through FÁS and, unfortunately, when three years have elapsed, the person minding them must leave. A bond exists between the person with a disability and his or her carer so it is difficult for a new person assuming the carer's role. I ask that the employment of such people, particularly in the Irish Wheelchair Association, be mainstreamed. The cost involved cannot be that high and it is very important that such mainstreaming takes place.

I compliment the Minister on the significant work he has carried out in the area of disability and caring for the elderly. He is a caring Minister, which is not surprising given that he is from County Galway.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Andrews.

It is safe to say this Bill will be keenly received by all Members of the House. Once again, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, deserves to be congratulated on a worthwhile, beneficial and tidy piece of legislation. There seems to be no end to the enlightened measures emanating from his office, whether it be increases in the fuel allowance or the removal of constraints on the use of free travel passes, to name but two. This Bill will open avenues for people across the State, in particular the disabled whose lives will, I believe, be greatly improved once this legislation is passed.

In publishing the Bill, the Minister rightly identified an anomaly in the ease of public access to information. In response, he reformed the system to enable people get a clear idea of where they stand in terms of State support and wider issues they may come across in everyday life. The Bill will rehabilitate information services across the country. The world can be a bewildering place and it is reassuring to know one will soon be able to pick up a phone, log on to a website or walk into one of more than 230 citizens information centres and gain advice, support or simply basic information on a subject which may be familiar to some, but confusing to others.

For example, I am sure many first-time buyers do not have full details regarding the ins and outs of mortgages, the options available to them or how they will work. It might be discouraging for people to go to a mortgage adviser if they think they might be pressed into doing business without being fully sure of the entire situation. Instead, in the future, they will be able to approach one of the improved citizens information gateways and get a straightforward and impartial explanation without any pressure or fuss. The same stands for many other topics in an expansive range.

Public access to information on services provided by the State is crucial. The hard work we do here every day in this democracy would be wasted if the people were not able to take full advantage of the State due to a lack of awareness. This new service will ensure people can be aware and well-versed in their rights and entitlements. The new citizens information brand presented here will ensure this service is well known and I hope it will become a well-established part of our society.

I used an example of a first-time buyer previously, but others are in more serious need of help which could critically affect their quality of life. Dealing with a disability is extremely difficult not only for those with the disability, but also for their family and friends. It can be harrowing, stressful and sometimes painful. Every Member hears stories of such pressures first-hand at clinics and on the doorsteps. Often, people are left trying to cope without adequate support and they get tired of constantly battling to ensure they have access to all to which they are entitled. This battle will end in victory for the disabled once this Bill is passed. It will legislate for the creation of an advocacy service for the disabled which I firmly believe will make a tremendous difference to those affected by a disability.

With this Bill on the Statute Book, disabled persons who approach the citizens information board will be assigned a personal advocate who will represent, assist and support them in ensuring they receive in full everything to which they are entitled. The advocate will be trained and knowledgeable about the social welfare system. They will be dedicated to the people they represent. This will relieve unnecessary stress for the disabled and their families, who will be assured of independent, professional advice. It will ensure an improved quality of life and allow people to concentrate on fulfilling their potential as individuals and citizens of this State.

The Government has committed itself to fully addressing the needs of the disabled and this is a major landmark and integral part of that commitment cemented in the national disability strategy. In 2005 alone, approximately €3 billion was spent on addressing disability issues, compared to €800,000 million in 1997. In addition, €2 billion was spent on income supports for people with disability, illness and their carers. This is a significant financial outlay, which I hope will continue to grow.

Ireland is changing at a fantastic rate and this legislation is practical recognition of this on the part of the Government. The restructuring of the citizens information board, including a reduction in the number of members and an increase in their period in office, will help ensure that the provisions contained in this Bill are put into operation to the maximum effect and fostered so they are maintained at the highest level.

This is the position not only in terms of the personal advocacy service, but the broader citizens information strategic plan intended to run to 2009. The board will work closely with the Government in implementing this plan, which is built on the four strategic priorities of integrated information, service delivery, advocacy and social development and accessibility. It was developed following extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including statutory and voluntary bodies, Departments, State agencies and the board and staff of Comhairle. This plan will affect everyone in the State and future immigrants to Ireland. It will affect those struggling with the terrible burdens of poverty, illness and disability.

A total of €55 million will be provided to the board over the next year and everyone will agree this will be money well spent. The focal point of this reform plan, the personal advocacy service, will be given additional funding. I am eager to see this initiative offered complete financial support, so it can reach its full potential. This Bill could make a world of difference to individuals, families and households across the country and I wholeheartedly commend it to the House.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Haughey for sharing his time and I agree with what he said. It is a real opportunity for people with disabilities to break out of various cycles of disadvantage caused to them. The issue I would like to highlight is employment. If an advocate for a person with a disability does nothing else, I hope he or she will assist that person to find employment. It has become more difficult for people with a disability to find employment. Because of the over-regulation of employment it is now harder for an employer to take somebody on as an employee if that person has a disability, consistent medical requirements and accessibility issues. If he or she did nothing else, an advocate could address such problems.

One stark statistic emerged from a recent meeting I had with the spinal injuries action association. In Switzerland, 90% of people who suffer a spinal injury are able to find employment within the first two years, whereas the equivalent figure in Ireland is less than 20%. Many people with a disability are currently sitting at home following the aggravated trauma of injury in addition to suffering isolation and disconnection from a society in which they had played a full role heretofore. Those comparative figures mean there is something missing.

As Deputy Haughey said, it could be a watershed for the hundreds of people concerned who could and should be in employment, if an advocate was able to represent them directly. Such an advocate could bring to their attention information about courses, supports, services and resources.

Over the past two or three years, we have had a great debate about rights issues. Many people have said that the legislation should be rights-based rather than a Bill that, while similar, is not exactly the same. As we now have much more assessment of needs, there is a problem with the constitutional position. In future, we must also address the issue of whether we should have a constitutional provision for people with disabilities.

Deputy Quinn said that advocacy is built into the Irish political system, which is correct. As politicians we are constantly acting as advocates, steering people toward services to which they are entitled, but the contents of this Bill will reduce the need for backbenchers to do some of this work. Quite frankly, that is a good thing, although such work is central to our democracy and something of which I am very protective. Many people are sophisticated and intellectual about clientelism but we are always no more than 24 hours away from talking to constituents. We are never more than an e-mail, phone call or text message away either. That linkage with the voters is crucial and there is no equivalent in western Europe.

I remember canvassing outside Lansdowne Road on the occasion of an international match. It is slightly outside my constituency but people were coming there from my constituency by DART. A Frenchman came up to me and said "I can't believe that you're standing here; if you were a politician in France you would be annihilated and slaughtered because that is the level of hostility there." In Ireland, however, public representatives have a two-fold role in this regard — not only do we direct people to services but we also enhance our democracy. I have absolutely no problem in defending what others witheringly refer to as clientelism. I consider it to be advocacy of democracy in the raw and something we should be proud to protect. The Bill proposes to establish a statutorily-based service for people with disabilities, which is a great development and an extension of what we do.

Yesterday, I met representatives of the Carmona services, which are run by the St. John of God order. They provide services for people with intellectual disabilities and, clearly, resources are always a problem. One of the worst problems is the lack of residential places for older adults with intellectual disabilities. Such persons might be aged 40 or 45 and are now living longer. Their parents are in their late 60s or early 70s and in certain circumstances are unable to cope with challenging behaviour, physical and mental health problems and intellectual disability. Through the Bill's provision of advocacy, we will be able to allow access for such people to the required services.

During the course of the meeting with the Carmona representatives a situation was highlighted which is central to many of the problems facing our health sector in the provision of services, which this Bill is designed to address. The public representatives present asked the Carmona people how they went about getting approval for a service, course or other things they wished to provide for their clients. First, they have to make contact with the local office in Bray. If Bray agrees to provide the service, they must then contact their own governing body, the St. John of God order. To approve the request, the latter body must go to Naas, the famous central unit of the HSE. Naas must then check with Bray that this service is an appropriate one and has been agreed with Carmona. If that is agreed, Naas contacts the St. John of God order and tells them that it is all right to carry on with this service. The St. John of God order then contacts Carmona and the service is approved.

By my reckoning, that is a total of six steps before such a service can be approved. If holidays, loss of files or other delays are included, there may be a six-month gap between the identification of a problem and its solution. In addition, the longer these problems are left unsolved the harder it will be to reverse their worst effects. There is something wrong at the core of the health system if it is that difficult to provide such benefits.

I spoke about employment and structural problems but we also discussed the provision of social and recreational opportunities at the Carmona meeting. As we all know, the special Olympic games were a huge success but there can be a long gap in the provision of the services to which I have just referred. One of the problems being experienced in Carmona is that while there are hundreds of volunteers they cannot undertake the work they wish to do without the provision of trained staff. This is one of the areas for which resources are not available. We should be examining the key issue of life-enhancing — the current buzzword is value-added — activities that would make the lives of those suffering from disabilities tolerable at least, if not an awful lot better. In Dún Laoghaire, those working in this area simply want to bring people out shopping or to the cinema, yet they cannot do so because trained staff are not available. This runs contrary to the core issue the Taoiseach has been talking about concerning active citizenship. We have a great cohort of volunteers ready to undertake crucial and noble work but they are unable to do it because the Government cannot turn on the tap to provide the necessary resources. That is wrong.

The Bill will provide for a team of advocates and Deputy Haughey spoke about a budget of €55 million. In that case, we will have a body of corporate knowledge that can be built up in the country and will provide the context for proper policy decisions and resource allocation in the sector.

I warmly welcome the Bill, which will make a great difference. I commend it to the House.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to speak on this new and important legislation, the Citizens Information Bill, whose purpose is to improve services for people with disabilities. Before going into the details of the legislation, let me first outline the reality facing many families of those with disabilities. We have a long way to go and I will point out some of the cases that exist in this country.

St. Michael's House has the largest waiting list for residential care nationally. There are 296 people awaiting residential places for 2006 and over 74% of these people live on the north side of Dublin. To reduce the waiting list they need 70 places per year. It is not a great figure and any progressive government could deliver on this.

Regarding the ages of parents of St. Michael's House service users living at home in 2006, 42 service users' parents are between 21 and 30 years of age, 199 are between 31 and 40 years of age, 408 are between 41 and 50 years of age, 284 are between 51 and 60 years of age, 283 are between 61 and 70 years of age, 181 are between 71 and 80 years of age and 51 are between 81 and 90 of age.

I suggest the Government target the most needy first. I am struck by some of these figures especially those relating to families with parents between 81 and 90 years of age and between 71 and 80 years of age. Any progressive Government, any radical Minister for Health and Children and any sensible Minister for Finance would use the budget to address these figures.

My daughter uses the secondary service in St. Michael's House. The figures for residential places show that in 1993 the Government gave 16 places and by 2006 it gave 17 places. There is something radically wrong with that. In 2000 and 2001, 70 and 71 places, respectively, were allocated to St. Michael's House and these are the figures we should implement in this year's budget.

The figure for residential waiting lists nationally is 1,893, within which is the St. Michael's House figure of 296. We must be sensible and target resources and the implementation of policy to deal with older parents who have children with intellectual disabilities on waiting lists.

I commend St. Michael's House on some of the excellent projects it has, particularly taking adults with intellectual disabilities out of institutions and placing them in quality care homes. I know many of these projects and have many friends who use facilities where five or six adults with intellectual disabilities share a lovely four or five bedroom house under the care of St. Michael's House. This is far superior to locking those people in institutions.

I also commend St. Michael's House on the work it has done on St. Mary's Hospital and Special Residential School, Baldoyle. The facility was handed over for €100 and is now worth approximately €30 million on the property market. There are radical new ideas there relating to adults with autism and other intellectual disabilities and we should support them in these services.

I have a special interest in intellectual disabilities, but there are also many bright, articulate and talented people with physical disabilities in our communities who, with a little support, want to make a contribution to society. I met a 21 year old man with a physical disability at my clinic in my constituency and he had a fantastic mind, excellent IT skills and a great interest in current affairs, particularly foreign affairs. He is the type of young man who should be sought by the Civil Service, possibly the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is a need for young people with an interest in foreign affairs and human rights. I urge the various Departments to work hard to break the 3% threshold.

I commend the likes of Dublin City Council. When I was a city councillor in 1999 the aim was to have 3% of the workforce comprised of people with disabilities. Within 12 months this figure reached 4.3%. That represents a couple of hundred people out of a couple of thousand and they are making a massive contribution. Dublin City Council has shown a very inclusive approach and is making a contribution to broader society. These are sensible solutions on which we are working.

The budget of two years ago was progressive on the funding of people with disabilities but we must continue with the issue. We must not give money to the wealthy in society in the coming budget. If there is money to be spread around it should go to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and towards disability issues. Good luck to those with two houses and two cars, but they should not be top of the pile when it comes to funding in this budget.

The Citizens Information Bill is a key element in improving services for people with disabilities. The combination of this Bill, the Disability Act 2005 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 is intended to convey clearly the Government's intention to have an effective combination of legislation, policies, institutions and services in place to support and reinforce equal access for people with disabilities. I think every Member of this House will support the ethos and vision of this section of the legislation.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Comhairle Act 2000 to confer enhanced and additional functions on Comhairle involving, inter alia, the introduction of a personal advocacy service specifically aimed at people with disabilities. This Bill also seeks to change the name of the statutory body to the citizens information board, to make certain changes to the term of office and membership of the board and provide for related matters.

Sections 1 and 2 provide for definitions and terms used in the Bill, including disability, social service, chief appeals officer and voluntary body. The definition of disability used is that contained in section 2 of the Disability Act 2005 and other definitions are included in relevant sections as appropriate.

Section 5 provides for the details of the personal advocacy service, including the provision of a personal advocacy service to qualifying persons by personal advocates who are designated as such by the chief executive of the citizen's information board. There are many strong advocates for the disabled, particularly groups like Down Syndrome Ireland, of which I am a member, the Disability Federation of Ireland and Inclusion Ireland. There are many people who have made a major contribution and I urge the Government to listen to these advocates because they are a strong voice that we could use regarding this legislation.

We should seriously consider prioritising certain aspects of the budget for 2007. Achieving the full inclusion of people with disabilities in Irish life must continue to be a priority for the Government. Inclusion Ireland, which I support, calls on the Government to show its commitment to people with disabilities by putting in place the resources required to clear the backlog of demand for services and income supports. The positive economic forecast for 2007 shows resources are available to the Government. Commitments to people with disabilities have also been made in the new social partnership agreement, Towards 2016.

I also appeal to the leadership of the trade union movement to focus on the issue of disability. Towards 2016 includes a strong section addressing the inclusion of people with disabilities and I appeal to all trade union members, from the leadership to the average member, to push the disability issue because it is an important human rights issue.

We in Ireland are often very good at discussing human rights as they pertain to other countries, and rightly so, but we must also ensure we address the issue as it relates to our own citizens. We must remind ourselves that these are the brothers, sisters, parents and children of people who pay their taxes every week.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, the Disability Act 2005 and the national disability strategy impose significant obligations on Departments and public bodies to work to ensure a fairer deal for people with disabilities who have been excluded from our economic success story. No longer should the question be one of ensuring an equal distribution of resources, we must go one step further. A progressive, sensible Government would ensure that people with disabilities not only receive their fair share of the cake but are involved in running the bakery. I commend the many talented people with disabilities and their advocates.

I have a series of priorities for 2007, the first of which is to review current funding arrangements and end waiting lists for services for people with intellectual disability. This year 1,906 people require a residential service, while 1,877 others require a respite service. Residential and respite services must be provided to high standards. Even in the past week, I have met families who receive fewer respite care hours than other families because they are considered to be stronger. They also need support and time to themselves, particularly the parents of adults with autism, because they care for their son or daughter most of the time. This is a difficult task at times, as I am aware from direct experience. We must, therefore, ensure respite services are available to all families caring for people with disabilities.

Inclusion Ireland has called for an independent audit of the national intellectual disability database, NIDD, in previous budget submissions. The NIDD cannot be an effective planning tool unless it is consistently monitored and the information collected is related to the needs of the individuals in question. The 2005 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the provision of disability services by non-profit organisations shows that nearly 90% of all intellectual disability services and 50% of physical and sensory disability services are provided by this sector at a cost in 2004 of almost €1 billion. Addressing the Committee of Public Accounts on 29 June 2006, the Comptroller and Auditor General stated:

At an early stage it became clear that although national databases had been developed to inform future needs and research, they were of limited value in assisting in the planning and managing of disability services. However, they showed that there were significant unmet needs.... Tackling this need requires a more holistic approach to planning the provision of services and greater integration of services procured from the voluntary sector into national plans.

The urgent need for voluntary organisations, private sector entities and statutory authorities to co-operate closely has been evident in recent days and will be highlighted again during the debate on the Leas Cross nursing home report in Private Member's business tonight.

The Competition Authority, in its submission to the Department of Health and Children on the strategic review of disability services, highlighted that there is little incentive under current funding arrangements to allow for greater competition in this area, thus leading potentially to more innovative services. I call on the Department to undertake an immediate review of current arrangements for funding services for people with an intellectual disability. This must include publication of the Department's strategic review of disability services, the ring-fencing of money for new residential services and a separate allocation of funding, to be specified, for those already availing of services whose needs have significantly changed or who are in substandard services. There is no excuse for substandard services. All funding for new places should be linked to each individual's assessment of need and identified by a pin number listed on the NIDD and a separate fund should be available for the emergency cases that arise every year.

I say to the Minister for Finance that a sum of €100 million plus €55 million capital will be required to start this investment programme in 2007, with a commitment to a similar level of resources for each of the following years. As matters stand, the €900 million overall funding package announced as part of the national disability strategy for the period from 2006 to 2009 will not solve the problem of residential services. A portion of this money should be used to encourage innovative service arrangements to enable people to live independently in their own communities and receive supports in their own homes if that is their preferred choice. I encourage people to examine the sensible idea of offering people a choice. If an elderly parent of an adult with an intellectual disability wishes to remain at home, there is no reason he or she should be placed in residential care. A sensible Minister with a creative mind would ensure the necessary supports were provided at home to people in this position.

My second priority for 2007 is to increase the number of respite places in the community for children and adults over a three-year period. A specified number of these places should be ring-fenced for children and adults with significant disabilities and challenging behaviour. A sum of €5 million should also be allocated to facilitate pilot schemes to develop alternatives to centre based residential respite places.

My third priority is to complete the programme to transfer people with intellectual disabilities who are inappropriately placed in psychiatric hospitals. The number of people listed in the national intellectual disability database as requiring a specific intellectual disability placement is such that there is no excuse for further delay in ending this situation. The health strategy, Quality and Fairness — A Health System for You, published in 2001 designated 2006 as a date for completion of the transfer programme to the community. The transfer of people to nursing homes in the absence of national standards and inspections should not be an option, however. A sum of €25 million and a further €25 million in capital funding should be ring-fenced for this purpose in 2007. Standards and inspections, another prominent issue in recent days, are also needed.

My fourth priority concerns income and will require ending the means testing of the carer's allowance, the extension of the full disability allowance to people living in institutions and the introduction of a disability payment of €40 per week, initially for people currently in receipt of means tested social welfare payments. The cost of removing the means test for the carer's allowance would be in the region of €150 million per annum, while the introduction of a full disability allowance for those in residential institutions would cost approximately €1.5 million. The introduction of a disability payment would cost a further €160 million. I have supplied figures to cost the sensible solutions I have proposed to address the issues of disability.

It is important that we do not overlook young teenagers in second level education who need support. This problem has arisen in my constituency in the past 12 months. Unlike some famous, private, fee-paying schools which appear to bang the doors shut on people with intellectual disabilities, a number of creative second level schools in north Dublin and elsewhere in the city have opened their doors to young children with intellectual and physical disabilities. These schools need support. It is not acceptable, for example, to have one learning support teacher in place for 500 pupils.

While I commend the Minister for Education and Science on investing significant resources to address the needs of children with disabilities in the primary sector, we must also wake up to problems in second level education. It is a scandal that proper services are not available to many young teenagers in secondary education. It is not acceptable that some young citizens, the children of taxpayers, have no access to services. I commend the schools that have the vision and courage to admit children with disabilities and do their best for them at a time when other schools are locking them out. If this process continues, we will have a two-tier education system in which the poorest and weakest children attend certain schools, while the brightest and most affluent attend other schools. This type of apartheid in the education system is unacceptable.

As a parent and strong advocate of people with disabilities, I urge the proper implementation of the Bill and demand, as a matter of right, proper services and support for all those with disabilities.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Citizens Information Bill, the aim of which is to modernise the provision of information on all social services to all citizens, information that should be available to everyone. All public representatives have first-hand experience of providing as much information as possible to citizens. I congratulate the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and his staff on bringing this Bill into the House and the work they have done on it.

Many Members spoke about the effect this Bill will have on people with intellectual disabilities. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate those involved in St. Joseph's Foundation in Charleville. They do excellent work for those with intellectual disabilities from my part of County Cork and parts of County Limerick. As public representatives, we work hard with community groups and sporting organisations to advance the facilities available to them. The work done by the staff and management of St. Joseph's Foundation for people with intellectual disabilities is unmatched in any community group. I wish them well. They are always seeking funding to expand their services and it is good to see they have not lost their appetite. They formed the organisation in 1968 and have pushed the boundaries on funding for a wide range of initiatives ever since.

As many Members know, often citizens are not aware of their rights and entitlements. A week ago I met the Carers Network for an informal discussion on the information and support available from the State. Anomalies have arisen with PRSI and pensions and many people have found they are unable to claim their full State pension at 65 or 66. Information is sent out by both the State and individual Deputies but there are issues such as the farm retirement pension, where people stopped paying PRSI because they thought it was no longer necessary. When they reach the age of 65, however, the State pension is no longer available to them.

Problems exist throughout the system. Women who left the workforce to work full time in the home and returned to work when their families are raised have a gap in payments that reduces their pension. We must look at these anomalies to ensure that those who have given up their PRSI contributions should be able to find information about paying PRSI to ensure they will receive a State pension. I come across people who feel hard done by as a result of this.

I welcome the proposal in the Bill to communicate with all citizens, particularly the most vulnerable in society, including those with disabilities. The Bill introduces a personal advocacy service for those with disabilities who have, for one reason or another, trouble obtaining social services. This is an encouraging initiative that assigns personal advocates to people with disabilities who often face difficulties when applying for social services. This clearly shows the Government's commitment to deliver for those in our society with a disability and to give them the greatest possible chance of full integration into society.

The advocacy functions are clearly defined in the Bill as assisting, supporting and representing the people when trying to obtain a social service, pursuing any appeal on behalf of that person and providing support and training. The appointment of a director of personal advocacy is a vital step towards ensuring that what is proposed in the Bill is successful in its operation. I am encouraged that all queries can now be dealt with under the banner of citizens information. Prior to this, various groups dealt with various issues.

We must seize the opportunity to sell the citizens information concept to the public. An advertising campaign will inform people of the new service and the easily accessible website that replaces the old site, which has served its purpose, and a single telephone number, essential components in this new structure. The Minister has factored this into the picture when selling the service. We must harness new technologies to make the accessing of information simpler and the information itself more user-friendly and readily available. This is a major issue because many of those who contact us are looking for information in simple English.

This Bill provides for those with disabilities in a new and modern way and gives the necessary information so that people can be confident of receiving all the welfare payments to which they are entitled. This new service is progressive for the most vulnerable groups in society and will result in a significant improvement in the position of people with disabilities by removing any difficulties in applying for or obtaining a social service.

I welcome the launch of the citizens information strategy for 2006-09, which will meet the needs of modern Ireland. In this plan, the delivery of independent, accurate and integrated information is a priority. This is of the utmost importance to those in society who, until now, found it difficult to access information. The information strategy for citizens must incorporate information from all Departments, with consumer and farming information. The provision of concise, unambiguous, accurate and independent information has a role to play in breaking down barriers, opening up opportunities and allowing the most vulnerable citizens in society the chance to improve their situation and to build a better life.

The Minister's commitment that the information will be funded must be complimented. In the period 2006-07, €55 million will be provided to expand citizens information services and to ensure the proposals in the Bill are enacted. Like any legislation we pass, the most important thing is that the resources are provided to ensure its enactment. I have mentioned the need for concise information centres for citizens of this country from all backgrounds. It is now up to Departments to look at the Minister's blueprint, embrace it and ensure its implementation. Many Departments do excellent work but there is no contact with other Departments to ensure the joined-up thinking we need. This legislation will ensure Departments provide information for those with intellectual disabilities. The Government is making a serious effort to address these issues.