David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I commend Labour Party Senators for tabling a motion which has strong sentiments which I fully support. It is encouraging when Government representatives have an opportunity to table motions in Private Members' time, that they have substance and deal with important issues. I am impressed by the wording of the motion which I do not think anybody in opposition could have framed any differently. I am pleased to pledge my party's wholehearted support to the motion. Government and Opposition parties have called for a positive ageing strategy and a national dementia strategy for many years. In the past a number of joint motions were supported by Sinn Féin and the Labour Party which called for the implementation of these strategies.

In the other House last week, Sinn Féin used its Private Members' time to table a motion on home help and home care services. One of the elements of the motion was the call for the national dementia strategy to be ratified before the end of 2013 and likewise a national positive ageing strategy. That is something we called for during a constructive engagement with representatives of older people and older people themselves through the Seanad Public Consultation Committee on the rights of older persons which took place in this Chamber. A report was published which the Minister should take on board when examining this area as it dealt with a whole range of issues which affect older people. In the motion we supported proposals relating to quality standards for home care packages, health statistics audits for community care, a greater degree of flexibility in respect of carer's allowance and clarity on entitlements for older people.

The Seanad Public Consultation Committee report also sought that the whole area of wardship be revised. I emphasise this concept is out of date and is no longer fit for purpose as it fails to respect the humanity of those who find themselves subject to wardship. The scheme which was set up under the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 effectively means that decisions are made for people without their consultation. I was contacted by Diarmuid Hanifin of Amnesty International, who is in the Visitors' Gallery, as I am sure all Senators were as part of our preparation for the debate on the issue. It is appropriate to raise the issue in the context of the motion. I concur with Amnesty International in its analysis that only when all attempts at supports are exhausted should decisions be taken on somebody's behalf.

In 2007 Ireland signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. To ratify the convention, our capacity legislation needs to be brought into compliance with international human rights law. Article 12 of the UN convention requires that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with everybody else and if people need support to make decisions they should get it. In order to comply with international human rights law, any new capacity law which the Minister for Health or, perhaps, the Minister for Justice and Equality may bring forward must reflect this ethos and also set out a statutory framework for supports. The ramifications of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are clear. Ireland needs to move away from guardianship and assessment of mental capacity to assessment of how people can be supported to make decisions. That must be the basis of any principle which should underpin any reform of the capacity legislation. Amnesty International has also advanced a number of points that should be taken into consideration when bringing forward any such capacity legislation. It is clear that the capacity legislation and the Mental Health Act 2001 should complement each other. The 2001 Act was supposed to provide for a rights-based approach. However, this has been suppressed, to some extent, by its interpretation and emphasis on paternalism.

There are a number of other points I wish to make but it is not possible to do that in six minutes. Sometimes motions which are well intentioned - this is a good motion - can wring hollow when set against other decisions made, such as reducing 1 million home help hours which people need. I am sure there is no public representative who has not been contacted by individuals who have been affected by the cuts in home help. We could argue rightly that cuts in this area are socially wrong because of their impact. This is an era when we need to make savings and to interpret the outcomes of decisions made. It is clear from my analysis, at least, and an analysis of all the groups who represent older people and people with disabilities that cuts to these areas while they might reduce spend in one area, increase spend in other areas.

Senator van Turnhout made the point that community care and caring for people in the home is meant to be the cornerstone of Government policy. If supports in the home are taken away there is a danger that will lead to people going into nursing homes and private nursing homes resulting in subvention and all the ancillary costs. While that is a possibility, it must be borne in mind when we make adjustments, cuts and savings. If we are saving on one part of spending, are we increasing spending in another area as a consequence of the action being taken? I reiterate my full support for the motion. It is one of the best motions I have seen from the Government in terms of substance and I am pleased to give it my enthusiastic support.