Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2012

Role and Functions: Discussion with Irish Advocacy Network

I remind members, delegates and those in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as, even when in silent mode, they interfere with the recording equipment.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If a witness is directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continues to so do, he or she is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome from the Irish Advocacy Network Ms Collette Nolan, chief executive officer; Mr. StephenGharbaoui, director; and Mr. Jim Walsh. I invite Ms Nolan to make her presentation.

Ms Collette Nolan

I thank the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to appear before it today to outline the origins, ethos and day-to-day work of the Irish Advocacy Network. In my short opening statement I will outline the origins of the network, provide an overview of the concept of peer advocacy, a concept that is central to our work; explain the values and principles that guide our work and give information on our day-to-day work, funding sources and budget. If the committee requires any additional or supplementary information, we will be happy to oblige.

The Irish Advocacy Network is a peer-led, island-wide organisation which, in partnership with other organisations, promotes equal citizenship for people with mental health difficulties through advocacy, information and support. We work with people with mental health difficulties in every county in Ireland, except Donegal. Our staff and volunteers all have experience of mental-emotional health issues which they use to assist people using mental health services to speak up, speak out and regain control of their lives.We had more than 25,000 contacts last year

The Irish Advocacy Network grew from a grassroots identification of the need for peer advocacy. Our purpose is to champion the voice of the service user and offer peer support and advocacy. The network was established following a conference that took place in Derry. In 1999 approximately 270 individuals from all over Ireland who had mental health difficulties came together with the purpose of creating a representative voice for service users.

Several key individuals presented this vision to health boards across the Republic of Ireland. They also went on to engage with other service users, health board staff and mental health employees. Subsequently, an elected management committee, composed of people from the island of Ireland, all of whom had experience of mental health issues, was charged with establishing the Irish Advocacy Network, IAN. In 1999, with support from a number of key people within the HSE, the Irish Advocacy Network was constituted and officially formed.

Advocacy is commonly understood in terms of arguing in favour of someone or something, such as a cause, idea, or policy. This involves active support usually provided by legal, professional or public representatives. Legal and professional representatives offer expert knowledge as a means of addressing issues clients present to them. The representative is therefore requested to speak on behalf of the client. Peer advocacy is different. The style of advocacy adapted by IAN was influenced by successful models previously developed by peer-led mental health interest groups and organisations, such as the United Kingdom Advocacy Network and the National Empowerment Centre in the US.

A core belief, as set out by these models, is that personal experience of mental health difficulties and using mental health services are essential and invaluable to understanding and supporting people with mental health problems in negotiating services and recovering from emotional distress. Any other form of knowledge is secondary to personal experience as a route to empathy and trust building between peers. Peers who have achieved a significant level of recovery provide support and in doing so act as inspirational figures to Irish citizens in the throes of emotional or mental distress.

An ethos of empowerment is at the centre of advocacy services provided by IAN. The ultimate goal is to enable the individual to advocate for themselves, building confidence through the provision of information and one-to-one peer support. Peer-led organisations by their very definition prefer this self-style advocacy and see it as potentially more empowering for the individual. The danger of paternalistic representation has been addressed by Dorethea Buck-Zerchin, a self proclaimed victim of forced sterilisation, honorary chair and co-founder of the Federal Association of (Ex) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry. She states "A person cannot be more devalued than to be considered unworthy or incapable of conversation." In other words, the voice of the client is in danger of being silenced as the potential for taking responsibility for one's own recovery through the promotion of choice and provision of information is overlooked, such as when a dependency on professional and legal experts sets in.

The Irish Advocacy Network acknowledges the value and utility of professional and legal advocacy but recognises its limitations. However, we strongly believe that peer advocacy, informed by a collective "expertise by experience" has an essential role in helping Irish citizens with mental health problems achieve maximum recovery and take back control of their lives. To ensure there is no interference with the message a client brings to us, a strong commitment is made that confidentiality is protected and that the IAN advocate would never act on a client's behalf unless asked to do so. We offer our services and never impose ourselves on any one. We work on the assumption that everyone with a mental health problem has the capacity to speak up for themselves and has an inherent ability to understand and make informed choices. Hope, opportunity and agency through choice is what peer advocacy could offer as means to empowerment.

IAN developed the concept of peer advocacy across Ireland and fostered the concept of recovery. For the first few years, a handful of IAN peer advocates worked on a voluntary basis. There began a growing expectation and need for our services from mental health service users and professionals. IAN now has 16 full-time staff, seven part-time staff, four trainees, five volunteers in the South and two full-time staff and one part-time staff in the North. IAN provides careers, volunteer work and training opportunities to people with experience of mental health problems. This is something IAN is proud of and continues to promote. In providing these opportunities, IAN helps people with mental health problems from the entire island of Ireland to reduce the effects of social exclusion.

IAN has established its services within all HSE areas, excluding Donegal, as well as the Belfast Health Trust in Northern Ireland, developing strategic partnerships and alliances in cross-Border health services. IAN carried out surveys and was heavily involved in research projects to inform the future of services and professional practice. It developed the capacity and expertise to provide training and information to a number of audiences and partner organisations. IAN was also commissioned to carry out an in-depth survey in order to inform the current mental health policy for the Republic of Ireland, A Vision for Change.

The set of values and principles which IAN is committed to have been informed by models of peer advocacy outlined earlier and developed by a group of Irish citizens who have experienced mental health problems and mental health services. The following values and principles provide an ethical framework and guide our conduct. Principles that the IAN upholds include autonomy, empowerment, choice, individual rights and client-directed representation. Values that guide the network include living examples of recovery, recognition of each individual situation, equality and citizenship, independent voice, peer-to-peer relationships, collaboration, listening, non-judgment, reduction of stigma, independent voice, and adaptation.

The Irish Advocacy Network has always valued best practice and professional standards in its important work. Mind Yourself, a peer-led advocacy organisation from Derry, developed an Open College Network accredited training programme to empower service users to speak up for themselves or for those in recovery to become qualified to support other service users. IAN has partnered with Mind Yourself to provide this training for all of its staff and volunteers. Topics and themes presented and explored within the course include confidentiality, the Mental Health Act, different types of advocacy, why peer advocacy differs from other types of advocacy, alternative therapies and understanding medication.

As with our values and principles, IAN's code of practice was adapted from successful models and developed by a group of Irish citizens with experience of mental health services. We believe this code of practice has served us well in maintaining a consistent, professional and ethically sound service, steeped in the consciousness of the mental health community. The code of practice addresses the following in considerable detail: how the relationship between advocates and service users should be conducted; how advocates deal with the information shared by service users and the circumstances in which such information can be disclosed to others; advocates' obligations, including to act within the law, IAN's health and safety policy and our commitment to only make commitments to service users that they can fulfil; and the requirements on advocates to avail of the supports and supervision provided to them in their work.

Before concluding I would like to illustrate the impact of the Irish Advocacy Network by giving some practical examples of the work that our peer advocates undertake every day. As members will see, our work is comprised of continuous support for individuals as they address the medical, social and personal aspects of their condition. This support only succeeds through the establishment and development of trust between a peer advocate and a client.

For example, we would support clients who appear before a mental health tribunal. This work may include supporting the client in clarifying what they want to communicate to the tribunal, ensuring that the client is fully aware of the procedures of the tribunal and accompanying them to the tribunal for the hearing and staying with them for a period afterwards to discuss the proceedings. Peer advocates also support clients in their dealings with case conferences. Again, this often involves substantial preparatory work with the client to ensure that his or her opinions and questions are communicated clearly and that the responses are clear and address the issues of concern to the client. It is our experience that this important work ensures that clients are more aware of their diagnosis, treatment options and care plan and as a result can continue to make informed choices about their treatment.

Our peer advocates support clients in both a community and institutional setting. We often work closely with clients on proposed changes in their care plan or medication. Changes of this nature are often an issue of concern and we ensure that the views of the client are clearly communicated. We find that this type of support often has long-term benefits in that it empowers the client in their dealings with a range of mental health professionals and they know that at any stage they can call on the support and understanding that a peer advocate can provide.

The IAN is a company limited by guarantee. We provide our services by agreeing transparent, practical service level agreements with a number of health and social care agencies.

In 2011 our total income arising from 13 service level agreements was €884,816, with the highest amount just over €300,000. Our SLAs are with the HSE and individual institutions. We also receive some minor funding amounts from the national lottery. The income funds all our work and we are careful to ensure we deliver value for money to our partners. As such, our overheads are purposely kept as low as possible.

I again thank the committee for the invitation to attend this meeting to explain the origins, ethos and daily work of the Irish Advocacy Network. I also thank the committee staff who guided us through what is a new experience for us. Our total focus is on our fellow citizens with mental or emotional health issues. As an organisation composed of individuals who have also experienced mental health issues, our driving goal is to ensure these citizens are given the confidence, information and support needed to speak out for themselves and influence their own care and path to recovery.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. We also appreciate the attention the committee has already given to the issue of mental health recovery, as well as the time the Oireachtas has invested in the issue, including the recent debate on mental health services, the maturity and tone of which were a credit to all concerned. Ours is not an organisation which actively seeks publicity and we are not experts at the public relations game. However, we strongly welcome external interest in and oversight and discussion of our goals, work and procedures. We will try to answer the questions of members of the committee.

Thank you, Ms Nolan, for such an informative and interesting presentation. We will take questions first from Deputies Michael Colreavy, Seamus Healy and Derek Keating.

I extend a warm welcome to the delegation from the Irish Advocacy Network. I believe this is the first time we have received a presentation from the organisation, which I commend for its hugely valuable work on behalf of many people in the country. The organisation undoubtedly fills a gap that has been there for many years and which badly needed to be filled. Many suffered a great deal more than was necessary before the organisation was set up.

I am very impressed by the presentation which sets out well the principles of peer advocacy. It is positive and progressive that in our system we recognise and facilitate the right of patients to have an advocate who is a peer, that is, somebody who has experience of mental health issues and is qualified to advocate. As Ms Nolan reminded us, that right is recognised in A Vision for Change and the organisation is delivering on what was outlined in that document. I commend the fact that the Irish Advocacy Network is also an all-island organisation with the exception of County Donegal, about which I would like to know a little more.

I have no wish to go into detail or apportion blame about the recent controversy at St. Brendan's Hospital other than to express my great respect and admiration for the person who alerted us to the wrong that was being done to people in our name. Does the Irish Advocacy Network have a view on that system failure? I would have expected a good system to alert us to what was taking place. I would have expected somebody to be responsible to report to the HSE or the Department of Health on the issues raised. It should not have been left to an advocate to alert us to what was happening. What is the view of Irish Advocacy Network?

The key is to focus on the issues that gave rise to that situation. What is Irish Advocacy Network's view on the fact that the system did not alert us to what was happening? I also wish to explore with Irish Advocacy Network the issues that gave rise to the problem, which I presume included a shortage of staff in St. Brendan's Hospital and the resultant movement of patients. My major concern is that the problem will be replicated across the mental health service owing to the departure of staff at the end of this month through mass redundancies or retirements.

It is retirements.

Yes. The Minister of State with responsibility for mental health services acknowledges that there is no plan in place to replace the staff who will leave the services. We are told that approximately 500 staff will leave and that approximately 400 will be recruited. That will leave a shortfall from the current staffing level, to say nothing of the loss of experience and skill.

Does the Deputy have a question? He has spoken for six minutes.

I am coming to a conclusion. What is the Irish Advocacy Network's experience of staff shortages and other cutbacks so far in terms of the care of the clients for whom it advocates? How does it assess the situation now that so many staff are leaving mental health services? Does it envisage particular difficulties for its clients as a result?

In terms of funding for the Irish Advocacy Network, does it know yet if or how it will be affected by the cuts in the HSE service plan for 2012? Does the organisation believe additional awareness training for HSE and other State and semi-State staff would help them to understand and work better with people with mental health difficulties?

I welcome the representatives of the Irish Advocacy Network and fully support the concept of advocacy. I have had an involvement with mental health services throughout my life in that both of my parents were psychiatric nurses, I was employed with the South Eastern Health Board for a number of years and through my family experience of service users. I appreciate the role of advocacy and support the need for the involvement of service users and their advocates in mental health services.

I am somewhat uncomfortable in commenting on the presentation we have been heard and the recent controversy. However, it is important that the matter be clarified.

I have a number of questions to clarify exactly what is the Irish Advocacy Network. Is it a single body or an umbrella organisation for a number of other organisations? Second, it has been said the network operates in 31 counties. I have not encountered it in south Tipperary. Does it have an advocate there or does it operate through another organisation such as the National Service Users Executive? A number of matters need to be clarified. From my experience in south Tipperary with organisations like the network, there is significant concern about independence. In the submission this morning and the report we have received, the network is identified as an independent voice. The recent controversy and my experience of mental health services in south Tipperary lead to serious concerns about the independence of the network and similar organisations.

I would like clarification on the funding of the network. Is it funded as a single organisation or as a number of organisations? These are significant issues for service users. The recent controversy suggests a close relationship between the network and the HSE. My experience in south Tipperary with another organisation in a similar area satisfies me that at least some organisations in the area are close to the HSE and do not operate on an independent basis. They claim to represent service users when they do no such thing. The construction of the organisation, its independence and its funding need to be addressed and clarified. The recent controversy should not have arisen and the manner in which it was dealt with by the network was detrimental to service users and the advocacy system.

I have no problem with peer advocacy but I am not sure that what it set out on paper is what happens in practice. My experience in south Tipperary and the recent experience in St. Brendan's Hospital, suggests to me that there is some difficulty between peer advocacy, representation of service users and an independent voice for service users. The funding question arises from this.

I thank the committee for facilitating the request to invite the network to this meeting. I welcome Ms Nolan, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Gharbaoui. I heard about the Irish Advocacy Network through my interest in mental health but I did not know much about the network until recently. The presence of the network today and its presentation are welcome. I also thank the witnesses for a copy of the strategic plan 2012-14, which I look forward to reading.

Does the network have a view on the Government's proposal for whistleblowers legislation, which I consider long overdue? I raised this matter in the Dáil yesterday and the Taoiseach indicated that it is proposed to introduce the legislation in the current session.

Perhaps the network can indicate how it deals with conflict and confrontation and how it represents patients in that respect to the agency that funds the network. I refer to the supervision of advocates in the network. What supports exist and what continuing professional development programmes are in place? Is there weekly, fortnightly or monthly contact with the funding agency? Can individual cases be discussed in the course of these meetings? Can the network report where pressure has been put on it because of its access to vulnerable or at risk front-line workers and patients who depend on the services offered?

I welcome the decision of the Irish Advocacy Network to reinstate the person we discussed earlier. I needed to advocate for the person in the circumstances in which she found herself. I have heard through the media that the person is being reinstated, which is the correct decision. What contact has been made to reinstate person to the position she previously held? When is it effective from and has already it taken place? Are any special conditions associated with reinstatement?

Ms Colette Nolan

There were many questions. I am not used to this type of question so I am not sure of the protocol. I will address the questions as best I can and perhaps members can remind me if I forget something.

We are an all-island network. The Deputy questioned why we are not in Donegal. STEER has a good service level agreement in Donegal. Regarding funding and our meetings with our funders, we are independent and this has not been an issue for us. We have been on the ground for 13 years and we have worked quite closely with service users. We have had not had a conflict of interest between the service users requirements and what our service level agreements allow us to do. We see ourselves as independent. We would appreciate independent funding but it is not on the horizon. We do not know what cutbacks will be made this year.

We work with the individual and deliver a service on a weekly basis in psychiatric units. We are present in south Tipperary but, before Christmas, the advocate for that area left. The area is now being covered by another advocate. I am getting a little confused.

Perhaps Mr. Jim Walsh or Mr. Stephen Gharbaoui would like to help out.

Ms Collette Nolan

Somebody asked about the umbrella group. We are not an umbrella group. We are a single organisation – the Irish Advocacy Network. Our funding comes to, and it is used for the employees of, the Irish Advocacy Network.

In regard to the whistleblowing legislation, I must be very honest and say we were not even aware of it until recently. The organisation has not had a discussion on it but we would certainly welcome an invitation to come in to discuss it. At this point, we have had no direction from our members or from our organisation around the whistleblowing legislation.

In regard to what happened in the past few weeks, one of the things on which we have built our reputation is the fact that all our advocates undergo peer advocacy training. It is an accredited training course run by Mind Yourself in the North. What used to happen was that everybody trained in a group and there would be ongoing assessments throughout that training. At the end of it, the trainee would shadow an experienced advocate.

Due to the demand for the service and the fact our resources were limited, we changed that model of training and started to train people on-the-job. They shadowed an experienced advocate and we started their training.

Will you talk about the process rather than the individual, if you do not mind?

Ms Collette Nolan

Yes. This is the process. What we discovered, because of the incident before Christmas, was that we were putting people into situations for which they were not trained and they did not understand correctly how our policies and procedures worked. We realised we had to go back and do our training the way we had always done it which was in a group setting with an ongoing assessment and shadowing at the end of it. That decision was made after Christmas.

In order to go back and do the group training, it meant that we had nothing for trainees to do while we were setting it up. We made a decision, which in hindsight was not a good one, that we would let the trainees go and bring them back when we started the group training. We realised this was not a good decision, so we reinstated the people we had let go. They have been reinstated into a training environment. The difference with their contract this time is that they will go into a group setting and training will be done as in the past which worked very well for us. The new model will not be tried again because it has not worked.

The training will be very important to see if the person understands completely the values, the principles, the confidentially policy and so on.

Mr. Jim Walsh

I refer to lobbying because some people talked about being more public about some issues, which is a fair enough point. One of our problems - this is why our values, principles and code of practice are set the way they are - is that there is a huge stigma attached to mental health. People do not want their problems going outside the service because they do not want to be recognised as people with mental health problems. We are instructed by our clients to support them internally with the problems they have from time to time. They do not want us going outside of that. Quite often, instructions are given by clients in that regard. Stigma is an issue.

In regard to working with organisations which lobby, quite a few of our members work with Amnesty International in its mental health campaign for more funding, to illustrate the shortfalls in funding and so on and some of the problems within the services. We work with Mental Health Reform, of which members are probably aware, on the same basis, namely, to raise awareness of the shortfalls in the service. We work through those organisations.

We do not see funding so much as an issue in regard to our independence but rather the legislation. Members will be aware the Mental Health Act is under review. What has come through strongly from us and from all our organisations is people's right to advocacy should be enshrined in legislation and that it should not be a privilege.

We have commented on a new document in Northern Ireland. We have our service there, so we are invited to comment on that. That proposes that advocacy is enshrined in legislation. We would like to see that followed here. There is also a model in Holland which states that advocacy organisations are protected by legislation and that their funding is guaranteed. Our funding is not guaranteed.

In regard to our independence, having advocacy enshrined in legislation and having funding guaranteed would be a better route for us. Where funding comes from has not really been a problem for us. The legislation and guaranteed funding are a problem for us more than anything else. Do we do what we say we do? We believe we do and we have yearly reports.

We work with the Mental Health Commission and other committees to raise the bigger picture issues. Our code of practice does not allow us to raise individual issues unless instructed by the people themselves. We work with the HSE and so on to bring the bigger picture issues to the fore.

Mr. Stephen Gharbaoui

I would like to address a couple of issues raised by Deputy Keating. On operational issues, I would not be involved in the day-to-day running, so I will remind Ms Nolan to answer a couple of those afterwards. I refer to one of the things I am very strongly in favour of and have worked to improve in the organisation. Deputy Keating will see in the strategic plan that one of our priorities is the continual support, supervision and training of all our staff because we value them as our main resource. That has been ongoing, especially in the past two years. We identified that we wanted to continually improve that and that is one of our six priorities. We take that very seriously and I believe we have good structures in place.

Deputy Keating raised the issue about conflicts of interest with the funders in terms of representing a clients' identified needs. How does IAN work with any conflicts in terms of bringing an issue to doctors?

Ms Collette Nolan

We have policies and procedures in place. We need to be very clear about something else. Deputy Healy asked if what we say on paper is what we do. It is absolutely what we do. We work with the service user. We have been service users ourselves, so we know how important it is to gain the trust of the people with whom one is working because if one does not gain their trust, one will not really support them with anything. Once we have gained people's trust, we can work with them and support them. We can look at their options and help them to look at options which they may not have even thought about. We can support them in using those options.

What is really important - I would like everyone here to understand this because, in my case, it was very important – is that we help the person to self-advocate because when one starts to advocate for one's self, that is when one knows one is starting to recover.

Let me backtrack a little, so as to outline the process. When we work with a person and gain his or her trust, what is really important is that we act on the person's behalf using the words he or she would use, so that we do not bring our thoughts, opinions or what we feel is best for them. If a person does not want us to bring the issue further, then we cannot go forward with it. We must respect the individual, and that a person is quite capable of making that decision. In the case of an issue that had an overall impact in a unit where we are working, for example, lockers that have no keys to lock them, so that a person cannot keep bits and pieces in a locker without others having access to them.

We would address that issue with the unit management. If the unit management was not in a position to do anything about it - there can be a great deal of red tape around doing something very simple on a unit - we could take the matter to the management of the hospital, where we are working. If the issue is raised at that level, it will be addressed. If it is a wider issue, one that cannot be dealt with by the management of the hospital - bear in mind that resources are a major problem - we could highlight it in our report to the inspectors. We meet the inspectors when the inspectorate conduct their annual visit or we can organise an interim visit, if we feel it is necessary. The inspectorate does have the power to deal with such issues. At all times we act in accordance with our policies and procedures in highlighting ongoing issues. Having highlighted such an issue to the inspectorate, we look at how to work on it further.

We work with an individual, and when we work with him or her, we understand exactly what it is like to be that person, who is afraid to trust anyone, who does not want people to know he or she is in hospital, or has a mental health condition. We treat the individual with the utmost respect and ensure his or her dignity is intact and at all times we respect the person's confidentiality. I may have gone off the point, but it is very important that this is understood

Mr. Stephen Gharbaoui

Deputy Derek Keating asked what kind, if any, pressure is put on the Irish Advocacy Network, the IAN, and how members might bring issues to its attention and for an update on the re-instatement of the individual concerned.

Ms Colette Nolan

When Deputy Keating asked about pressure being put on the IAN could he explain what he means?

With the permission of the Chair, may I respond to Ms Nolan?

Were there any indications that pressure would be put on the network because of issues that may have arisen from its access to frontline services?

Ms Colette Nolan

No, we do not come under pressure from the HSE.

Even though the HSE funds the IAN and gives it almost €800,000, can Ms Nolan say with certainty that no pressure or interference is brought to bear on it from the HSE?

Ms Colette Nolan

When we want to highlight an issue, we go through the channels to highlight the issue. I can say honestly that if we did come under pressure, we would feel there was something wrong and we would feel the need to highlight it in a different arena.

Mr. Stephen Gharbaoui

One of the skills that peer advocates have in highlighting issues is improving communications and negotiations.

Ms Colette Nolan

We met the trainees involved in the incident that was referred to earlier and both the trainees have accepted our offer of reinstatement. We are in the process of putting together a group training programme, which will not happen until the end of February or the beginning of March but we hope to organise it as soon as possible.

There are two final points, before the Chairman introduced new questions.

The Deputy has spoken already.

What is the current status of those employees?

Ms Colette Nolan

They have been reinstated.

Are they working actively in the network again?

Ms Colette Nolan

They would not be actively working because they are trainees. They were always trainees, but-----

What are they doing now?

The Deputy has spoken already.

Ms Colette Nolan

I am sorry Deputy.

What is their current status? Are they both working or are they training?

Ms Colette Nolan

They are not working, they are re-instated as trainees.

My final question has not been answered.

We will bring in the Deputy again.

My very final question, were there any additional conditions introduced as part of their reinstatement?

Ms Colette Nolan

The trainees are being brought back to do their group training which, will involve their ongoing assessment and ultimately, they have the potential to shadow.

I thank Ms Nolan and her colleagues for the presentation and taking the time to attend the meetings. For anybody who has family members or extended family members or people in their community with a mental disability, this can be very challenging not only for the person but for his or her family.

I have four questions. Does Ms Nolan have any involvement with the extended family members outside the service providers that the organisation deals with? How many service users would have been in contact with the organisation last year? What are the views of the IAN on the reaction of local communities to mental health units that operate in much the same way as a day care centre? Does Ms Nolan have any views on that?

According to the presentation, the Irish Advocacy Network has a staff of 32 comprising, full-time and part-time staff and volunteers. The organisation receives funding of €884,000, and if I read the information correctly, that is from 13 service level agreements, and a grant of €300,000 specifically from the HSE.

How much of the funding goes on salaries? How much goes to the organisation on the ground? Ms Nolan stated that the IAN is an all Ireland based organisation but does it get any funding from the NHS in the North of Ireland? How are its services advertised in the community? Is it through word of mouth, hospitals, GPs or other organisations?

I thank the delegation from the IAN for attending this meeting. Ms Nolan is not to be nervous because everybody is hear to learn about the organisation. In some sense it is sad that the publicity the organisation is getting is slightly negative as opposed to highlighting all the good work that the IAN does on an ongoing basis. I thank Ms Nolan for the great work that the IAN does every day.

Given the outcome following the difficulties that have been experienced by both parties in the past number of weeks, what lessons have been learned and what would the IAN do differently? I am not sure if Ms Nolan will be allowed to answer second question. I totally understand and appreciate the level of trust that is needed for this work, and how the whole relationship works, given the circumstances that existed to give rise to Louise doing what she did. What was done behind the scenes to address that issues? Did the IAN advocate collectively on behalf of those patients in a way that would not have necessarily warranted being in the news? If Louise did not do as she did, we might not be having this conversation.

Members, please do not mention names.

Apologies, if the information had not come to light what would have happened in that situation?

I have only gained the knowledge of the existence of the Irish Advocacy Network in very recent times but the idea of peer advocacy for mental health patients is excellent. Pursuing the objectives that have been outlined and which feature in the brochure provided is of vital importance. It is indicative of the fact that we have moved a long way from the terrible stigma that surrounded mental health in the past. I look forward to the day when this stigma has been completely eliminated. I wish the Irish Advocacy Network the best of luck in its work. I am sure it is a little difficult for members of the network to come before the joint committee to face a grilling.

I note the Deputy used the word "grilling". It is not the role of members to interrogate witnesses.

I was referring to how the witnesses may perceive their appearance before us. I am trying to set their minds at ease by indicating that this meeting is not an interrogation.

A number of issues have arisen which deserve attention and I hope we will all benefit from examining them. We often learn and move forward when crises occur. In terms of how the Irish Advocacy Network perceives its role, it was my understanding from the earlier discussion that it perceives this role to be one of representing individuals and it places great emphasis on the confidentiality surrounding the individual circumstances of mental health patients. It advocates and assists patients to advocate with medical professionals and the authorities, if one likes, involved in this area. While this is clearly a valuable role, does the network agree that the recent case exposed the fact that there are different levels of advocacy?

Apart from individual advocacy and representation with a strong emphasis on the desire of the individual for confidentiality, the other layer of advocacy relates to collective concerns. In the case in question, this involved patients in a particular facility being faced with a particular set of circumstances with which they were not satisfied. I cannot speak for the patients in question as I do not know their exact circumstances. However, is it not the case that confidentiality may not have been the biggest issue, if it was an issue, for these patients? Was it not the case that to advocate on their behalf, something more akin to the way in which a trade union operates was required, in other words, collective advocate on their behalf was needed? Does the Irish Advocacy Network agree that confidentiality is not always the highest priority and that in some cases publicity is necessary to exert pressure in the interests of patients? How does the network respond to that view?

The Irish Advocacy Network presents itself as being independent and I have no doubt it wishes to be independent. However, I cannot escape the idea that a conflict of interest arises if the network is being funded by the organisation which, while it may not be advocating against it-----

To be fair to Ms Nolan, she stated the Irish Advocacy Network is independent when I asked her that question.

Yes, I would like to have the answer to the Chairman's question elaborated. To use the trade union analogy, nobody would take seriously a trade union that was funded by employers. They would certainly see a major conflict of interest. This is not the fault of the Irish Advocacy Network.

Would the Deputy argue the same holds for Drink Aware and the alcohol industry?

I ask Deputy Boyd Barrett to withdraw his remark which implied the Irish Advocacy Network is not independent of the Health Service Executive.

I did not make that suggestion.

The Deputy has spoken for six minutes.

My point is that while I do not doubt the Irish Advocacy Network's bona fides for one minute, in objective terms its funding position creates a conflict of interest. Does Ms Nolan agree with that analysis? Does the recent case not give rise to a requirement for the network's funding to come from an independent source?

On the change in the models of training that surrounded the case in question, the individual involved was removed from the wards the day after the issue became public and was not returned to the wards. That is a pretty worrying development, although it may have been a coincidence. Will Ms Nolan confirm it was a coincidence?

Ms Collette Nolan

The Deputy asked many questions. On the lessons learned, sometimes when one is making a decision one needs to take expert advice beforehand. We have certainly learned that lesson.

If I am to respond to the other questions, I will have to refer to the incident that occurred. I ask the Chairman to inform me if I contravene any rules. We have an experienced advocate who has been visiting St. Brendan's unit weekly and has been working with the clients of the unit and other units for a long time. The specific issue was that a ward was due to close for resource reasons. As it could not be staffed over Christmas, there was no choice but to close it for Christmas and the closure affected a number of clients. The experienced advocate spoke to the clients and asked them if they wanted him to advocate on their behalf. They did not wish him to do so. Some clients were moved into nursing homes and a number of others were moved into another unit. There was very little the advocate could do on the day in question as the clients did not want him to advocate on their behalf.

I ask Ms Nolan to speak about the process rather than the individual cases.

Ms Collette Nolan

The process that day-----

Chairman, may I-----

Ms Nolan has not mentioned any names.

It is a long-standing parliamentary practice that witnesses should not criticise or make charges against members or persons outside the House by name or in such a way that makes him or her identifiable. I am trying to be fair.

Ms Collette Nolan

I apologise. The process is that if the clients in question had wished us to act on their behalf, we would have gone to the ward management on the day and question and acted on their behalf. However, they did not want us to do so. At that point, our other process kicked in whereby the experienced advocate, the person who normally provides the service, made arrangements to meet with his line manager to discuss whether we could organise extra visits to the clients to ascertain if we could offer them any other support during the period of the move. Other events took over at that point and the issue became public and was dealt with by a number of people. The one thing we could not have done, and I do not believe anyone could have done it, was keep the unit open. That was not possible. Although the clients were being moved to a closed unit, they were not losing their liberty and were still able to come and go as they pleased. They were returning to a unit they knew and with which they were familiar. There was little more we could have done in that instance.

The Irish Advocacy Network does not seek publicity, nor does it do its business in public. We do not advocate for anyone to do their business in public. We would not at any time or in any circumstances go public with any issue. We work with organisations such as Mental Health Reform and Amnesty International. Public advocacy is their role rather than ours.

While it would be great to receive funding from an independent source, I do not believe that will happen. As I stated, we have not considered that to be an issue until now and we do not expect it to be an issue in future.

On the issue of contact with families, we have contact with families but we do not work with them. If a family member makes a request to meet us, as families can get upset around the time of a person's episode because they do not know how to deal with it, we would meet them and discuss the issue from our experience and try to assure them. However, there is another organisation to which we would refer families. We do not work with families but with the service user.

Mr. Stephen Gharbaoui

Deputy Byrne asked a question about day centres and homes but the issue was not clear to me.

Perhaps Mr. Gharbaoui would refer back to Deputy.

Mr. Stephen Gharbaoui

I need to refer back because the issue was not clear to me. Deputy Byrne asked a more detailed question about our funding. She suggested that of the €880,000, approximately €300,000 came from the Health Service Executive. Nearly all of the funding comes from different departments of the HSE. We receive small amounts of funding from other independent agencies but the majority of the €800,000 comes from the Health Service Executive and not in one lump sum. She also asked about the Northern Ireland funding. We receive a separate small amount of funding from the Belfast Trust for our work there.

Mr. Gharbaoui may liaise with Deputy Byrne by e-mail.

I asked one question. In fairness, it may be that this is not part of the organisation's general work and, if so, I will understand if that is the case. It was whether the organisation felt the need for additional awareness training on mental health for HSE staff and other State and semi-State staff. Has the organisation identified any general gaps in awareness training for staff who deal with those who have mental health problems?

I will call Deputies Healy and Boyd Barrett for brief questions as they have had an earlier opportunity and have had a good run at it.

I am still not clear on the structure of the network. What is the connection, if any, between the Irish Advocacy Network and the various organisations who contributed to the review, such as Mental Health Reform and National Service Users Executive? Is there a crossover in membership? Would the advocate be the same person who represents any of these organisations in a particular area? I have come across a particular difficulty in south Tipperary and I would like to have that issue clarified. I am in south Tipperary a long time and I am not aware of the network's advocate there.

The representatives said the question of being public about the issues facing mental health patients is simply never considered. I can understand why most of the time it is not considered. Are the representatives saying there are no circumstances in which advocating effectively on behalf of mental health patients would not require it to say publicly that something is bad for them, for example, a ward closure? If that is not the role of the Irish Advocacy Network does it agree that somebody must play that role?

I have one other one line question. Are the two trainees back on the payroll?

We are not going back to individual cases. That question has been answered already. I call Ms Nolan - she could be Deputy Nolan yet.

Ms Collette Nolan

The two trainees were never off the payroll because they were not due to leave until 27 January and they were reinstated last week. They are still on the payroll.

Our relationship with other organisations is that we partner with other organisations on different projects in which we take part. When we did our review we considered it was only right that we consult with outside organisations to ascertain their view of the Irish Advocacy Network.

Do any of these organisations represent the Irish Advocacy Network on the ground in, for example, south Tipperary?

Ms Collette Nolan

No, they do not. In regard to Deputy Boyd Barrett's question about publicity, the role of the National Service Users Executive, set up under A Vision for Change, is to highlight issues. It has a more public persona than the Irish Advocacy Network.

The megaphone does not always work. It is very easy to organise protests and be vociferous with a megaphone.

It worked in this case.

Ms Collette Nolan

In regard to staff awareness training, we provide ongoing staff awareness training wherever possible to the mental health professionals, community groups and anybody who is interested. We provide awareness training on what it is like to have a mental health problem and some of the issues that can affect such people. We also try to work around the issues of stigma and discrimination. In some cases we go out and meet individuals rather than do a presentation to many people. There may be one or two people within a service who may wish to know more about our work. In that case we would go out and meet them and explain who and what we are. Following that, they often want to know how better to deal with people with mental health problems. We do a good deal of work under the mental health tribunals and we work with people who are going before the tribunals. We try as best we can to meet people who are detained to explain their rights under the new Mental Health Act and support them in using those rights.

I thank the representatives for appearing before the committee and-----

Mr. Jim Walsh

There is just one issue. Ms Nolan said we had in excess of 25,000 engagements last year from our advocates. On average we have approximately 20,000 engagements per year. In the context of the whole of Ireland, there are 23 advocates working. Therefore, it is hard for people to see us because we are so scattered throughout the country.

In regard to training, we are in the process of creating a new training programme in partnership with Dublin City University at degree level. That will kick in very soon and will be an "add on" to what we are already doing.

We would welcome any member of the committee or any Deputy who wants to meet our advocate in his or her local area to speak about the service we provide.

I thank the representatives for the interesting presentation on the work of the organisation in highlighting mental health and their confidential approach to the issues. Today's meeting was not an interrogation but an information gathering exercise to augment and support the work of the organisation and to ensure it has, within the Oireachtas, people who are willing to engage and to highlight and promote the issues raised.

The joint committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 February 2012.
Top
Share