This motion was put down for the purpose of directing attention to the inadequate facilities available to mentally handicapped children and it is in that spirit I believe it should receive the attention it deserves. The problem of treating mentally handicapped children is one that has existed for a considerable time but, for many reasons, public opinion has not been focussed sufficiently upon it. The inadequate arrangements which exist for treating these children are due to many reasons but particularly to the somewhat natural one that, in the past, many people regarded the fact that a member of a family was mentally handicapped as something to be kept quiet rather than exposed to attention. That attitude has greatly changed in recent years due to the development of proper corrective treatment and proper accommodation, and so on. That development has impressed itself on everybody interested in the problem and particularly on the unfortunate people who have the responsibility of caring for persons of this type. Much can now be done to alleviate the condition of these people. The facilities now available for corrective training can provide a much improved method of looking after these people, of rehabilitating them and of allowing them to take their place in the community.
The purpose of this motion is to direct attention to the fact that the facilities at present available in this country are entirely inadequate. There is no attempt to apportion responsibility to this Government or any other Government but the motion is put down in the hope that a recognition of that fact will act as an incentive so that all those charged with the responsibility of solving this problem will make the maximum effort possible.
The White Paper published by the Department of Health recognises the fact that not half the number of beds at present available or in prospect will suffice to meet the requirements. The number at present available and the number in prospect, amounting to a total of 3,200, falls below half the number required. In the estimated figures available, it is assumed that a total of 7,000 additional beds are required and the number at present available, in addition to the numbers shortly to be added, means that 3,200 beds will be available. That is less than half the requirement.
I feel we have a responsibility to see that sufficient money is made available for this purpose. I think it is right to say that no tribute can be too high to pay to the work which the Brothers of the St. John of God Order, the Sisters of Charity and the other persons who voluntarily undertake this work are doing and to the skill, attention and devoted care which they have displayed in their efforts to deal with this problem. Some years ago, because of the very serious effect which tuberculosis was having on the community, the most radical steps were taken and expenditure was incurred in order to deal with the problem. This problem has never impressed itself to the same extent on the community but it is a very real one and has brought much suffering and hardship to the persons concerned and their families.
It is for that reason that I believe we should approach this matter in a new way and that we should recognise the importance of treating it as a matter of urgency. The White Paper which was published is all right, so far as it goes. It deals with a number of matters which will require to be dealt with, poses some questions and leaves a great many unanswered. The litany of questions at the end of the White Paper, starting at paragraph 29, are matters that will have to be dealt with by experts, whether by the commission which it is proposed to set up or by the medical and other people who are qualified to express an opinion on the various matters there raised.
It is undoubtedly difficult not to come to the conclusion that there is too much complacency on this matter. If attention is paid to paragraph 16 on page 7 of the White Paper, some of the matters expressed there are most disappointing. There is a senseless effort to pass the buck from one Department to another and there is the usual jargon which is employed when State Departments wish to avoid responsibility. It says that because of the type of service they provide, certain services do not clearly fall within the ambit of the functions of the Minister for Health. Neither could they be said to be educational establishments and, as such, to come within the responsibility of the Minister for Education.
It goes on to say that as it could tenably be argued that as the centres provide care for mentally handicapped children, many of whom cannot be educated or trained and thereby provide relief for the parents of the children, they should be considered the concern of the Minister for Social Welfare. It adds that as the Minister for Health has, however, accepted responsibility under the Ministers and Secretaries Act for somewhat similar groups, such as senile and infirm persons and unmarried mothers and their children, it might, therefore, be appropriate for that Minister likewise to accept ministerial responsibility for the day centres, on the ground that they fall more clearly within the ambit of his functions than elsewhere. The community is not greatly concerned with which Department accepts responsibility. The Government as a whole have responsibility and the House, in voting money for this problem, in common with other health problems, has accepted responsibility for it. The main thing is to get action in order to provide additional accommodation.
Probably one of the greatest problems connected with this matter is that a great number of young people who are in institutions will be obliged to leave them when they reach 18 years of age. What will happen to them when they leave? The more fortunate will probably return to their families, if they are in a position to look after them. Others will be transferred to county homes where they will tax the accommodation which in most cases is overcrowded. What is even worse, the corrective training, the treatment they have been given, will largely be wasted because there is no facility available in these institutions for a continuation of the training or for a follow-up. Consequently, much of the useful and advantageous work already done in attempting to rehabilitate them will be wasted. That is a very serious aspect of this problem and one to which very little attention has been paid.
I know from recent experience that in some cases it takes up to three years for a person to be admitted to one of these institutions. That is very disturbing and it should impress on everyone concerned the urgency of the problem.
This motion was tabled to focus attention on the problem and to urge on the Government that the measures taken up to the present have proved inadequate. While we recognise that steps are being taken to provide additional accommodation, the statement in the White Paper admits that, even after the accommodation in prospect is provided, there will not be half the number of beds available that are required.
I said earlier that I am afraid the amendment to this motion has the hallmark of complacency. Whatever we do about this matter, we should not be complacent. Nobody has sought to exaggerate the difficulty of the problems. There is no question of making political capital out of it. This problem has existed for a number of years and successive Governments have made efforts to deal with it. The fact that the efforts up to the present have not proved sufficient does not mean we should rest and leave the matter as it is. In the past, other matters had to be dealt with as well.
At the moment and for the future, this is one of the problems which should merit far more vigorous attention than it has received up to the present. I am seriously concerned about what will happen to the very large numbers of young persons concerned. The fortunate ones will have spent some years, or some time in the shortest case, in institutions. They will be obliged to leave the institution when they reach 18 years of age. The institutions already available cater for persons up to that age. Many of them take children at 10 but they are obliged to leave at 18; others take them at a younger age. However, they must all leave when they reach 18 years of age. The serious question arises as to what will happen to them when they leave these institutions. Some of them will be taken back again into the home environment and a few may be fortunate enough to be looked after properly. In other cases, much of the money, care and attention, as well as a great deal of the skill, that has been devoted towards their rehabilitation will, to a very considerable extent, be wasted because no facility is available for follow-up treatment.
I want to quote a paragraph from the report of the World Health Organisation on Mental Handicap. It says:
Every child has the right to develop his potentialities to the maximum. This implies that all children, irrespective of whether or not they suffer from mental or physical handicap, should have ready access to the best medical diagnosis and treatment, allied therapeutic services, nursing and social services, education, vocational preparation and employment. They should be able to satisfy fully the needs of their own personalities and become, as far as possible, independent and useful members of the community.
I hope that we, as members of that organisation, will endeavour to ensure that the services and facilities we provide will enable that aim to be realised. I hope the Minister and the Government will accept this motion in the spirit in which it is moved, namely, in order to direct attention to the urgent problem which requires solution and for which, I have no doubt, the House and the country are prepared to make the necessary financial provisions to meet the needs of this very deserving section of the community.
