Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the contributions from everybody in the House regarding the motion I placed before the Dáil. I have only five minutes in which to sum up and there is no point in thinking that if I make a very fine and elegant speech, I will convince Members opposite to come over to our side and support our motion. I will dwell on a few important issues that have been emphasised by all sides of the House.

I am fully aware of the constraints under which the Government is working. I understand the pressures it is under in terms of budgets, but the key issue with regard to funding for people with intellectual and physical disabilities is the arbitrary value for money review that has been carried out. This root and branch review of services and supports for people in either mainstream education, specialist schools or independent living is too arbitrary. While the Government is trying to extract as many efficiencies as possible, which is the obvious and correct thing to do, those who are most efficient are being penalised to the detriment of the service providers. That is clearly what is happening.

The point I am making in a non-partisan and non-political way is that the Government needs to look at the individual service providers providing care in the community, in specialist schools or for independent living. Those providers who have reached the efficiency levels the Government assumes are acceptable should no longer be penalised and should be allowed to get on with what they are doing, namely, providing care and facilities for people who need and want them. We should focus on this issue over the next few minutes. Everybody has consistently pointed out that there are problems with the Department of Social Protection assessing the domiciliary care allowance, carer's allowance and other social welfare payments. The problem is that the rhetoric does not fit with what is happening on the ground. It is not a criticism of the Minister of State or anybody else but a criticism of the system, which we must address.

The same issue arose with home helps. We were told that everybody would be independently assessed and that there would be no cuts in services. Despite this, there was not a Deputy in the House who did not find people who had been badly treated in terms of the system withdrawing supports. This is beginning to happen in the area of disability. The Government has carried out the value for money review, has the figures in the Departments and knows the service providers who are carrying out a very efficient system and delivering an excellent service. They are all over the country. I agree that some could do more but there are many who can do no more because they are not being given the resources.

These service providers have wonderful facilities and in some cases they are almost family to the users, particularly those with disabilities whose parents are very elderly. They are moving on. Individuals see these service providers as their home and family. This arbitrary cut is forcing the service providers to make very difficult decisions. A key issue is that they are being obligated to absorb the incremental increases agreed under the Croke Park agreement. A very efficient organisation which has cut itself to the bone is being asked to fund increments from its own savings. There is only one place this will come from, and that is the service itself. It will come from diminishing the quality of life for people with physical and intellectual disabilities.

I do not expect the Minister to run in the door to announce extra funding will be provided, but in the name of God will the Government do something about removing the arbitrary assessment and examine the individual organisations doing a wonderful job day in day out throughout the country? If an organisation is inefficient then deal with it, but do not make everybody pay.

To quote Samuel Johnson, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding", and to paraphrase him, I have found the Government an argument and I am providing it with a solution. I urge the Minister of State to come up with a mechanism to address all of these issues. It would certainly satisfy the service providers and, more importantly, the people who need and use the services on a daily basis. I commend the motion and I urge the Minister of State to take on board this suggestion alone.

See this speech in context