Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

We can all draw analogies.

This Bill, if implemented in its entirety as part of a national disability strategy, has the capacity to improve the lives of an enormous section of our community which has up to now been sadly neglected by many Administrations over the years. Before I discuss the detailed provisions of the Bill, I will address the context in which this Bill has come before the House and some of the history behind it.

In drafting this legislation, there were two different and divergent approaches, the so-called rights-based approach and the delivery-based approach. I compliment those individuals and groups involved in drafting this complex legislation. It has been a long process with huge inputs from the Department, the disability groups and NAMHI. I also compliment those disability legislative groups and the friends and parents of those with intellectual disabilities, such as Ger South in the Limerick East constituency. All had an important role in bringing this Bill to where we are now. It now rests on the desk of the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, and I wish him well in bringing this complex Bill to fruition.

This is one of the few Bills that came before committee before it came to the floor of the House. The Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, under the chairmanship of Deputy Ardagh, decided to hold a series of hearings over several weeks on the legislation. All interested parties were invited to attend. Before the Bill entered the hothouse atmosphere of the Chamber, it was discussed in a cool, calm and reflective atmosphere, to get the views of the disability groups and experts. I sat through, as did Deputy Stanton, many of those sessions, many of which were enlightening and informed some of my views. There was excellent feedback from the sessions and I compliment Deputy Ardagh for bringing forth this initiative.

Placing the Bill in its wider context is important. It is unfortunate that people seek to debate it in isolation. I am the first to admit that if one examined the Bill on its own, one would question whether it has the capacity to deliver the results and goals shared by all Members. The Bill must be viewed in the context of the full implementation of the national disability strategy. This involves the full implementation of the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill and other sectoral plans and the full provision of the Cowen package of €900 million, announced in the budget. The Disability Bill on its own will not deliver results unless the other elements of the national disability strategy are implemented. It is part of an important package, not an À la carte menu. I compliment the Minister of State, his predecessor, Deputy O'Dea, and their officials for taking their time to engage with all groups in ensuring the package was right. An analogy can be drawn with the Finance Bill with which the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, is familiar. The Finance Bill cannot be examined alone without considering what came before it, such as the Estimates process. The Finance Bill cannot be examined as an instrument in changing revenue raising laws without considering the detailed provisions of the budget. I ask that the Disability Bill be considered in the same light.

Regarding the ethos underpinning the Bill, it is important to analyse the different and divergent approaches, both of which are genuinely and honestly held by their proponents. One is the rights-based approach, the other, the delivery-based approach. The former purports to extensively set out in legislation the rights and entitlements for people with disabilities. This approach allows the right to resort to litigation to have those rights enforced. On the face of it, it is a laudable objective. I see its merits in the context of unlimited resources. However, its fundamental premise that delivery automatically follows the creation of the right is flawed. It is wrong to make that assumption because, when examined carefully, it does not stand up to logical criticism. I accept people come from different backgrounds when approaching this area. However, my one abiding memory from the hearings of the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights is that one can discuss rights for people with disabilities until the cows come home. However, it is an academic discussion unless the substantial resources needed to enforce those rights and deliver their services are available.

The opposite is also true. There is no point throwing unlimited resources, be it €900 million or €1.8 billion, at the issue unless a strategic framework and approach to delivery is in place. We have all seen that with the health services. A delivery-based approach, enshrined in the Bill, is the correct way to deal with this complex and difficult area. For the first time, the Bill offers a reasonably structured and strategic approach to the delivery of services for people with disabilities. It is about putting a meaningful and deliverable system in place. It is fine for Members to have an academic discussion on rights. However, we would be abdicating our responsibilities to lawyers who will run to the High Court for months on end and then the Supreme Court to discuss rights. There are no finer people than lawyers to do so at enormous cost. The Bill will put in play a system that will make a difference for people by delivering on the ground. I respect the proposers of the rights-based approach. Their history and personal involvement in the lives and welfare of those they seek to care for cannot be questioned. I have discussed the Bill with constituents who are the friends and parents of people with intellectual disabilities. However, I believe the rights-based approach is fundamentally flawed and will not bring about the objectives we all seek.

I want to dispel the myth that those who argue in good faith for a different approach are somehow not in favour of the delivery of services and benefits for people with disabilities. That myth must finally be nailed. We all have the common goal of delivering services. Those who advocate an alternative approach have a bona fide right to put forward an approach that will work for people on the ground. The Bill introduces fundamentally greater rights than before. One must distinguish between the absolute rights people discuss in an academic and nebulous way from the concrete statutory rights of delivery, which this legislation will provide if underpinned by proper funding.

There are inevitable consequences to providing the absolute rights to which academics and others referred in underpinning the opposing argument. First, a huge proportion of the €900 million announced in the budget, and greater funding in years to come, will be diverted each year in deciding what these absolute rights are. We will not have a clue from one month to the next what these rights are, because it will involve many lawyers being employed to make decisions, and the rights to which people are entitled will change on a yearly and monthly basis. How can one run a proper strategic and structured approach to this whole area if one must wait for the lawyers to go down to the Four Courts, and go before some judge who may have different views and a different ethos from anyone in this House? It is the judge who would then lay down the law, which is surely the ultimate abdication by us as legislators. Second, the €900 million package over the multi-annual programme — this is the key point if one adopts a different approach — would inevitably be spread disproportionately to the areas designated by the courts. In other words, if the courts decided in six months that everyone in the country with any sort of speech or language disorder is entitled to the enormous rights enshrined by law, and protected by the courts, how far would the €900 million go? With that type of approach the money would immediately go into speech therapy, laudable though that service is, but what about people with other intellectual disabilities such as autism and so on? As there would be a fundamentally skewed approach to this whole area, the entire strategy would collapse.

There is a much better approach. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen has committed some €900 million and no one can doubt his sincerity and commitment in this area. What we should address here is where to allocate these resources. We should not challenge this Bill so that lawyers can litigate from here to eternity. A legitimate debate in which we as legislators should engage is about where to spend the fund. To advocate a different approach is fundamentally wrong.

Having said that, there is one aspect of the new legislation which changes the previous legislation, namely, the rowing back from section 47 of the previous legislation, which provided that people could not have access to the courts. That approach was not correct, but access to the courts should be in the context of ensuring that the services that will be delivered under the Bill are accessible.

I would like to address some of the criticisms of the Bill. There will be a welcome conference by NAMHI on independent assessment. Is it really independent? We have a statutory approach now in this Bill. How else would we do it? If one examines the social welfare and planning codes, should one change over to a completely independent body in the first instance? Even under these codes, one does not have rights to the court as one does in this instance to ensure one's service statement is implemented. The other criticism is that this is top heavy in bureaucracy but how else can we ensure that the rights enshrined in the legislation to independent assessors, service statements, liaison officials and appeals, are provided?

I will conclude by saying that one cannot divorce the legislation from the context in which it has come to this House. The legislation is not worth a hat of crabs unless it has a huge amount of funding underpinning it, which is guaranteed and now in place. No one can doubt the commitment of the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to what I predict will become known as the Cowen package. His record in this area speaks for itself. Even the disability groups would be the first to acknowledge this. It would be easy to introduce a Bill without a strategy, but for years people have been calling for a strategic approach.

Deputy Durkan made a very telling point at the end of his contribution. He said that we do not want to reach a stage where people are coming to his constituency clinics, cap in hand, on an ad hoc basis, begging almost for a delivery of services. Neither do I nor anyone else on this side of the House. The question is what to say to these people. Do we tell them to toddle along to their friendly lawyer, end up in the High Court in two years' time, roll the dice, spend an enormous amount of money and see what they are given, or do we say, "This is the structure in place. This is a mechanism to provide the delivery of the services to which we believe you are entitled. Not alone that, but we are providing the funding to match and underpin it."? That is the reply I want to give to people who come to my clinic, not the reply Deputy Durkan gave. It is a strategic and focused approach to the delivery of service. If funded properly in the long term, the legislation will go a long way towards providing a good service. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context