Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I concur with what Deputy Finian McGrath had to say about the very good work being done by those providing services throughout the country. I agree that everybody must be treated professionally. I agree there are examples of good practice with an enlightened approach. Many Deputies have outlined difficulties that exist in the provision of services, some practical examples of which Deputy Gerard Murphy has given. A major overhaul of the service provision is needed, which will be considered by the Health Service Executive. Often resources do not represent the problem in the provision of services. I recently received a letter from a parent of a school-going child of approximately nine or ten who used a wheelchair. She needed to go to ten different offices and agencies before eventually getting simple and straightforward pieces of equipment to which she was entitled. We should have a more streamlined system.

On the issue of resources and the efficient provision of services as outlined by Deputy Finian McGrath, we need to consider where disability service provision has come from in this country. It grew up as a result of religious orders and voluntary and community organisations providing services which were not provided by the State. Undoubtedly existing service provision contains considerable duplication. If we were starting now from a greenfield situation, we would have a very different arrangement in the provision of services. In the new HSE structure we will most likely have a county-based service provision. It is not all about resources or the lack thereof. Having been involved in this legislation since last September I feel it is necessary to modernise the structures and modernise and rationalise service provision. Continuing to invest money in a bad structure will not yield results. The points made by some Deputies are relevant in this respect.

Government amendment 109a follows the persuasive contribution of Deputy Stanton on Committee Stage. It will require the HSE to refer a complaint to the complaints officer within ten days, which I believe to be a reasonable timeframe. Deputy Lynch's amendment No. 109 seeks a seven-day period. Some people may have suggested a period of a month. However, provided that Deputy Lynch is happy with ten days, we can agree on the matter.

It is interesting to note the varying timeframes sought for various aspects of the complaints process, which range from a month in amendments Nos. 112 and 113 to a general provision of a specified timeframe in amendments Nos. 115, 119 and 121. The variations expose the difficulty of pinning down a timeframe to suit everybody and as section 21 already allows for regulations to determine timescales for the process, I am satisfied that this represents the most practical approach.

Amendment No 112 seeks to ensure that informal resolutions of complaints will be completed within one month. Setting such a stringent timescale could be detrimental to finding an effective and workable solution for the parties concerned and particularly in the more complex cases it could encourage a quick-fix solution instead of achieving the best solution in the interest of the individual. Amendments Nos. 115, 119 and 121 seek to require the complaints officer to make recommendations to specify a timescale for the implementation of recommendations. The timescales for implementation of recommendations for assessments and preparation of service statements are already determined in sections 9 and 11 of the Bill. Accordingly I do not propose to accept these amendments.

I assure Deputy Ó Snodaigh that I was not trying to get at Deputy Ó Caoláin. In response to his demand in recent days that I should listen to some of the proposals made here, I have tabled amendments, to which we will come, in respect of issues such as the one I have just outlined. I am not bringing in changes at the last minute. Rather my amendments are in response to a number of issues raised in the House.

The members of the DLCG who met the Taoiseach yesterday and are still involved in the process are the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies; People with Disabilities in Ireland, Mental Health Ireland, the Not for Profit Business Association and the Disability Federation of Ireland. These organisations represent hundreds of disability organisations and individuals with disabilities, their families and carers. The three organisations that decided to leave the DLCG are NAMHI, the National Parents and Siblings Alliance and the Forum of People with Disabilities. I would welcome a rethink on the part of those three organisations. I want to continue a partnership approach with the DLCG after this legislation has been passed. There will be significant work in the preparation of the regulations and the establishment of the standards by the Equality Authority. The Government very much desires a partnership with the DLCG following the passage of the Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is in everyone's best interests that the partnership continue. I therefore welcome the fact that we still have five organisations involved in the DLCG. There was a positive meeting with the Taoiseach yesterday and it is in the Government's interest that we continue that partnership approach.

See this speech in context