Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join in congratulating Deputy Finian McGrath for once again bringing to our notice the plight of people with disabilities, the continuous neglect of them by Government and its willingness to inflict cutbacks on them.

I was struck by Deputy Murphy's reference to the figure of €20 million in the context of the cutback in this area. The disproportionate chaos and misery caused by cutbacks of this amount is difficult to understand. The sum of €20 million in terms of the overall budget is very little. To a project which aids the disabled, a group of disabled people or voluntary organisation, €20 million is an enormous amount. In terms of the public purse, it is a tiny amount. I am continually surprised by the willingness of this Government to cut back in the disabilities sector when plenty of slack remains in the public purse. For example, it costs €20 million per week to run FÁS. The waste in FÁS is unfathomable yet the Government is still prepared to regard it as a political sacred cow-political protectorate, to appoint people to its board and to pay €20 million per week to subsidise it. There is masses of money to be saved in not giving favoured directorships in semi-State bodies and agencies and other areas of public patronage. They have not been cut back, and where they have, they have been cut to an absolute minimum yet the Government is continually prepared to impose cuts on mobility allowances, respite care and so on. It is staggering that it does so while continuing to promote other areas of naked political patronage which are undoubtedly doing little for the public good.

We must ask the reason this is happening and why it is continually left to the Opposition to be the voice of the disabled. Deputy Finian McGrath and a few others aside, the disabled have few voices in this House. This is partly because acknowledgement of disability is only still coming out of the dark ages. When I was young, autism was not a big problem because people would not acknowledge it was a problem. I do not believe Asperger's was even spoken of and dyslexia was pretty well ignored. All of these disabilities are now in the public arena thanks to Deputy Finian McGrath and others. We have come out of the darks ages in that way. However, we have not done enough for the disabled.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan mentioned that she was particularly surprised by a demonstration by people in wheelchairs outside this House. It should not take, as it did some weeks ago, an extremely vivid demonstration by people in wheelchairs in front of this House and Government Buildings in full view of the cameras to move Government some way down the road to helping people with disabilities. Government did move as a result of that demonstration and media exposure of the heartlessness of what it was doing. It did move because of the imagery of that demonstration. While it is good that it moved, why in the name of God did it in the first instance inflict these cuts on people who undoubtedly had no strong voice within Government to represent them? The disabled are soft targets. It should not take an all night vigil by people with disabilities to change the Government's mind.

There is in the Government philosophy behind this proposal a type of silent acceptance that everybody must take their share of cuts. I do not understand why people who were born with a disadvantage should take a share of cuts: they have already taken their share of cuts. I have no conception of the reason parliamentarians have not given an in-built and rights based voice to the disabled in these Houses. The Seanad, which has heard representations from voices of all types of different organisations and interests, has never given ex officio the right to the disabled to have a voice there. Representation of the disabled in the Seanad would have been an extraordinarily suitable gesture. Also, it should be provided in the Constitution that a particular percentage of the budget every year be put to one side for the disabled so that governments do not have the discretion to pick on this easy target, as they do from time to time. The Government should not have the ability to make cuts in this sector and should be tied to having to give a particular amount to people who cannot help themselves. This would provide the disabled with constitutional protection financially on an annual basis.

For some time, there has been in place a target for aid to under-developed countries, although it is not one to which we have adhered as it is not a constitutional issue. The idea that we should aim to give a percentage of our budget to the Third World and not be prepared to give the same percentage to people here who are disabled is totally and utterly unacceptable, particularly at a time when Government is prepared, as mentioned earlier by other speakers, to throw its weight behind paying vast sums to bankers in State banks who do not deserve it. A cutback in the amount paid by the State to the directors of State banks would make a direct difference to the disabled.

In the light of the announcements this morning and yesterday about vast payments going to bankers, I ask the Minister of State to pledge on behalf of the Government to vote against any increases in bankers' pay at Bank of Ireland, as the Government has the power to do, and pledge to give this money to the less well off, in particular those who are disabled.

See this speech in context