In reaction comments to last Sunday’s article entitled “Government revamping financial aid system for disabled children”, Inspire’s treasurer Philip Rizzo has warned the government to ensure that a secondary market for such vouchers is not created.

The government, he said, needs to ensure these vouchers cannot be bartered or cashed by parents/ guardians to the disadvantage of their dependents, who are unable to protest that not enough is being done to develop their own potential.

Last week this newspaper reported that the government is aiming to revamp the ways by which it distributes financial aid for education and therapy programmes for disabled children, “to ensure that parents and their disabled children receive the services they require and that these services are of the highest quality”.

Replying to questions on recent polemics between the Inspire NGO and some of the parents of disabled children using its services, a spokesperson for the Justice, Dialogue and the Family Ministry confirmed that the government “wants to reach an agreement with NGOs on the type and quality of services it provides”.

Over and above that, the spokesperson also confirmed that the government is “exploring the possibility of directly helping, financially speaking, the parents of disabled children thereby allowing them to choose, for themselves, the NGO or NGOs from which to obtain the service they require”.

The government recently met with representatives of Inspire, and the government had agreed to increase financial aid to the NGO. According to the spokesperson, that aid will not come in the form of cash handouts or donations, but will instead “be tied to an agreement on the quality and type of services provided by Inspire”.

Parents who spoke to this newspaper believe the voucher system to be fairer in that they would be able to choose where to take their children, like in the case of schools.

In his comments, Mr Rizzo asked whether the government’s proposal means it also plans “to cap and ‘voucherise’ educational and health services for the so-called normal so that a student can redeem one’s vouchers at private lessons rather than at the quality-controlled ITS, MCAST, or university”.

“If not, then why should the mentally disabled be treated differently?” he asked.

He also expressed doubts on other NGOs that provide services to disabled children and, comparing the services for disabled people with healthcare services, he asked whether the government thinks it is best that a person requiring healthcare services should seek treatment given by “unsupervised freelancers and perhaps part-timers”.

He expects the government to continue carry out checks and balances, as it does by employing health professionals to ensure the quality of services being delivered to the entire population.

He asked: “Why should the mentally disabled, who are the weakest of our society, not be given the same protection?”