Seanad debates
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Services for People with Disabilities: Motion
6:00 pm
Phil Prendergast (Labour)
I welcome the chance to contribute to this debate. Everyone has the right to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health. I take issue with the Minister, however, when he talks about studying mathematics at university and taking money from the economy. Services were not improved when the State was awash with money. I have been involved in politics for 17 years and there are many people whose needs were not met. Some areas were improved and I welcome that there have been modest improvements. More needs to be done, however, in children's mental health services and within the education system.
The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act was mentioned by Senator O'Toole and I agree with his remarks on it. We must also deal with the justice and care systems. Access to health rights and equality of access to care are very important.
Advocacy is defined as taking action to enable people to express what they want, to secure their rights, represent their interests and obtain services they need. It is an uphill battle for some. The Minister's announcement of the national advocacy service is important but we must remind people of the context and the way services for people with disabilities are developing. The national disability strategy that was launched in 2004 included a commitment to introduce legislation establishing the personal advocacy service. There was controversy about the legislative components of the strategy, especially the limited recourse to the courts in the Disability Act and the introduction of the personal advocacy services. There was a need to examine the Act in depth.
In the current climate the focus is on cuts to front-line disability services rather than the rights of the individual to receive services and have a say on how services are delivered to them and planned for them, which is how those who best know their own needs have an input. For those who cannot speak for themselves, there should be advocacy to deal with those issues for them. The failure to introduce personal advocacy, with the introduction of a system where State-appointed advocates who can support people with disabilities to challenge inappropriate or inadequate service provision or the lack of consultation in decisions made that affect them, should be a matter of concern. We are paying lip service to something we do not really understand. It was a priority in ensuring Ireland's compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which Ireland is yet to ratify, particularly Article 12 on equal recognition before the law and Article 13 on access to justice.
Instead of introducing the personal advocacy service, a pilot project of 46 community and voluntary sector advocacy projects was introduced in 2006. These projects have been hosted throughout the country, with some targeting specific areas and others trying to serve particular populations. The projects were hosted by local groups, Citizens Information Board services and other community bodies, with one staff member in place working on complex cases with the most vulnerable populations. I have met people in that situation and some areas did not have an advocate owing to the lack of a project to host the service. Some groups put together excellent proposals to host the service and were disadvantaged in other areas because their case was so good. Only a few residential services had access to advocacy services and no community visitor programme was introduced as proposed by the Citizens Information Board which had statutory responsibility for advocacy.
The evaluation of the pilot programmes was published in June and recommended statutory independent advocacy being put in place with regional teams of advocates hosting five regional services, hosted by the Citizens Information Board services. This evaluation was independently conducted and met many people who have assessed the advocacy services and they tell the real story of people's situations.
I have permission to outline one case that involved a man living in residential care who had multiple sclerosis, which left him paralysed from the neck down, along with some cognitive difficulties. He was separated and had two children who lived in another European jurisdiction with his former partner. He had not seen his children for two years. He was looked after by a member of this family but when he entered residential care, she could no longer care for him. He was very unhappy in care. The facilitator in the home referred Patrick to the advocate. His issues included access to finance, planning for independent living, access to his children and seeking the medical support required. His family was not in favour of him travelling to see his children, but the advocate worked on his behalf and secured a trip to Europe for him. Organising support and planning for the trip required protracted negotiations with the management of the residential home, but he visited his children and plans to do so again.
A pilot service, the Tipperary advocacy service, provided a personal advocacy service for people with physical and sensory disabilities. As the project involved only one advocate, it was unable to provide a service for every people with a disability, including many in the county with an intellectual disability and mental health difficulties. As such, there is no independent advocacy service for such persons in the county or elsewhere in the State. What assurance can the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, give that the national advocacy service will be able to meet the needs of all vulnerable adults with disabilities in, for example, County Tipperary? No additional posts are being created and there will be no further funding. The service in Munster will be managed by Waterford Citizens Information Services, with eight or nine advocates covering the entire region and the different client groups.
Recently I met a constituent who was wheelchair-bound and listened to what she had to say. She expressed great frustration because she had reached the limits of her ability to get around. She had problems egressing her house. She also told me how previously dished footpaths had not been returned to their original state after being interfered with by the local authority while it was laying new pipes or lines. There was no joined-up thinking where access to taxis was concerned and the bus system did not meet her needs. That shops on the main street did not allow her wheelchair access was ludicrous. When I had a double buggy all those years ago-----
No comments