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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and compliment Deputy Finian McGrath and the other Members of the Technical Group for tabling it.

I do not question anybody's integrity or ability to advocate, campaign on or highlight the issue of disability in this House. In fact, one would think that it should be an obligation and duty for Members to do that, as elected representatives. The idea that one group or party has a franchise in this area is just disingenuous, to say the least. We are talking about disability among a large cohort of our people and every Member of this House has a duty to ensure that they are well represented and protected.

The difficulty, and where I perhaps part company with what has been said by some Members, is that we must ensure we protect the services available for people with disability, older people and others who might not and are not able to advocate for themselves. Clearly, how one would assess and adjudicate on any government or democracy is on how it caters for and allows people to fulfil their full potential during their lives. That, in essence, is what this motion is about. It is about asking the Government to reverse certain cuts that are unacceptable, to ensure that certain provisions are put in place so people with disability can live as independently as possible and to ensure that supports are tailor made for that reason. When one looks at the HSE's disabilities services plan, it is hard to reconcile the words with the actions. As Deputy Keaveney said, acting on verba in this case is critical. While we all advocate, what is necessary is substance to that advocation in terms of delivery of services.

The last two budgets, for example, have been regressive. There is no point in pretending otherwise. Being regressive means that those at the bottom must carry a heavier burden than those at the top. All independent adjudication and commentary, including that of the Economic and Social Research Institute has stated that those two budgets were regressive. That simply means that services to people with low or no incomes are hit hardest, and all the statistical data show that people with disability are largely in that category. We talk about protecting, ring-fencing and ensuring that services and supports are maintained, but the way to adjudicate on that is by assessing what happens on the ground. When one examines the service plan for the HSE nationally, break it down on a regional basis and looks at the wholetime equivalent numbers of staff, one can see quite a large reduction in the area catering for older people and for physical and mental disability. There is no point in pretending this is not the case.

The question that must be asked is whether we can deliver the same service with fewer people at the front line. At a certain time one reaches a tipping point, and I believe we are at that tipping point. We simply do not have the resources in terms of personnel to deliver front-line services to the people who need them most. The national disability strategy is very clear, as are all the other strategies that have been published in recent years, in terms of tailor-making a suite of services for the individual needs of the physically and intellectually disabled and of older people. Those supports must be put in place. However, if one looks at the budgets that have been provided and the level of services committed to in the service plans, it is clear there will be a reduction. That is not just me saying it but also the HSE. It has stated that there will be a cut to services. It stated as much in the last service plan as well. No matter what way it does its work there will be a cut, because the efficiencies expected by the Government will simply not accrue. If the efficiencies do not accrue, the quid pro quo is cuts to services. Otherwise, a supplementary budget would be sought at the end of this year.

Last year, when there were pressures on the health budget, the first services that were cut were special personal assistants, home help hours and other services for disability. While we all advocate and highlight, as is our duty, the fact of the matter is that what is voted on in this Dáil and what happens on the ground are sometimes at variance. No group that advocates for, represents or works with people with disabilities says the services have improved. They patently have not improved. At best they have stagnated and in many cases they are worse.

When we debate these issues it is important that we are honest and robust in highlighting our perspective of where services and supports are deficient. Equally, however, we must be objective in how we go about ensuring a better delivery of services. Clearly, that must be done in the context of the policies of the various parties. In the meantime, people with disabilities and older people cannot wait forever and a day for verbal commitments from the Government to be translated into action through services. That is why this motion is important. It highlights and keeps a focus on the Government's policies and actions.

Elsewhere, one can look through the service plan and how it goes about the delivery of the national disability strategy. It is of huge importance that there is an implementation process in place. The same applies to A Vision for Change, if we intend to be serious. For a long time there has been a debate about the ring-fencing of €35 million for mental health. There is no doubt it was not available last year but let us hope it will be this year. The prospects so far are positive in the sense that the recruitment has taken place. However, last year that budget was snaffled and put into the central budget. There is no point in saying otherwise or in denying it. It clearly happened. We must ensure that the HSE, which is the main service provider, will have the flexibility to ensure that if there is a deficiency in savings, cost realisations or income streams, the first people to be hit again next September will not be those who need personal assistants, special needs assistance and learning supports. People who need supports should not be the people who are affected first.

I commend the motion. It keeps to the fore the accountability of the Government for the provision of funding for services for disability.

See this speech in context