Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies who contributed for their comments on the Disability Bill 2004. I concur with Deputy Timmins that we all want the best for people with disabilities. I have listened to valuable contributions in the House and read extracts trom the debate when I was not present. Much of what has been said relates to the ten key points raised by the disability legislation consultation group. These points have also been presented by the group to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Many other important points were also presented, some of which will require time on Committee Stage to tease out more fully. I will look at amendments on Committee Stage.

Listening to the contributions, I am not sure Deputies recognise the significant impact for people with disabilities of the equality policies pursued by the Government since 1997, or the importance of the national disability strategy launched by the Taoiseach, of which the Disability Bill is but one element. When I presented the Bill to the House on 4 November 2004, I referred to the developments in policy and service provision for people with disabilities which have gathered momentum in recent years. We have had strong employment equality and equal status legislation in place since 1998 and 2000, respectively. That legislation is among the most advanced in Europe. In June 2000 the Taoiseach launched the policy of mainstreaming public service delivery for people with disabilities. Mainstreaming requires that public bodies, wherever practicable, deliver services in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities as well as other citizens. The policy signalled the Government's commitment to move away from segregated service provision to a more inclusive model.

Some Deputies have suggested that we have failed people with disabilities and put the economy first. In the course of the past decade a thriving economic climate has been created in Ireland. We have recorded one of the best economic performances in the European Union. From 1997 to 2003 Irish GDP grew by around 8% per annum, compared to an average of about 2.5% in the rest of the European Union. The fruits of this economic success have been put to good use and are reflected in the increased investment in disability services.

Expenditure on disability services in 1997 amounted to just €800 million, or 4.8% of gross current public expenditure on services. By 2001 the comparable figures had risen to €1.6 billion, or 6% of gross current public expenditure on services. This showed that disability services were an important spending priority for the Government.

The investment programme announced by the Minister for Finance in last December's Budget Statement will result in an even greater emphasis on disability services. In 2005 €2.9 billion, or almost 7.5% of gross current public expenditure on services, will be spent in this way. The figures quoted do not take into account the income supports and other services provided through the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Nor do they reflect the fact that many people with a disability participate in, or benefit from, mainstream public services and programmes. The 2005 expenditure figure represents a 3.5% increase in the eight years from 1997.

Everyone in the House welcomes the budget announcement of the new multi-annual investment programme for high priority disability support services. The total value of the investment programme is close to €900 million in the years 2006-09 and will be focused on the health and education sectors. This is in addition to the further €150.5 million included in the 2005 Estimates. The programme will enhance service levels where most needed. Its significance is due to the high value of funding committed and the application of a multi-annual approach to current spending.

Some Deputies have criticised the Bill because service provision is subject to resource availability. Let us be realistic. Every area of public service provision is governed by resource constraints of time, personnel and funding. The Government recognises that there is an historical deficit regarding disability services. We know that they need more funding and have put in place a firm programme to establish a sound baseline for service provision. In addition to the unique investment programme announced in the budget, the legislation will require Ministers for the first time to make an explicit determination of the funding they will allocate each year for the purposes of the Bill. In making these allocations they must weigh their other commitments while giving specific consideration to the disability element of their allocations.

Many speakers have found fault with the Bill because they say it is not rights based. In other words, it does not provide justiciable rights to services. They criticise the absence of direct access to the courts but fail to acknowledge that a court case can cause delay and hardship for a person with a disability and his or her family. In contrast, the legislation will provide important new rights such as a right to an independent assessment of health and educational needs, undertaken without regard to costs or capacity to supply services; a right to a related service statement setting out the services that can be provided within the resources available to the health or education service provider; and a right to redress through independent complaints and appeals mechanisms, including, ultimately, enforcement of decisions through the Circuit Court. I assure the House that will not be a major bureaucratic exercise, as has been alleged.

In particular, the Bill provides an easily accessible user-friendly means of redress. It is based on existing successful models of independent redress that apply in other sectors, such as social welfare.

Listening to the Opposition, I am clear about their plan for involving the courts in disability service provision. However, I am not clear on how they would develop disability services — and we know there are limitations in present services — so that people who do not have services will get them. The Opposition does not refer to planned service growth supported by sectoral planning and prudent investment.

Perhaps they see case law driving service delivery but do not see the inevitably uneven way in which services would be delivered overall, based on occasional judicial decisions. In making these statements the Opposition should be aware that for every €1 given in settlement of legal cases and paid out by the Department of Education and Science to special needs education, €4 went to pay the fees of members of the legal profession, in connection with those cases.

See this speech in context