Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State on getting her many new responsibilities. I wish her well in those responsibilities. She always has been a genuinely committed person. I was very impressed that she once admitted openly on radio that she came into this House with one view, but found that most Deputies on all sides of the House work hard for people.

The last remarks by the previous speaker disappointed me because when I became a Minister, if I thought the previous Administration had made mistakes or did things I did not agree with, I reversed them. If the Deputy's party disagrees with the decisions we made in the area of social welfare and if he believes there are other cuts or other savings in the budget, the simple decision in the past three years was to reverse those cuts and apply some other cuts, extra taxes or whatever in their place. I would have thought that after three years the Government would have begun to accept responsibility for its own decisions and would have realised that to borrow more today is to mortgage the children's future tomorrow.

I am glad to see the acting Cathaoirleach in the Chair. Every year at this time those of us from Galway West faced the problem of the school-leavers because it was done on a regional basis rather than on a national basis. I recently got a phone call from the HSE to advise me that the new process was working and that following a very simple operational change it would be able to indicate to parents that they would have a place in the autumn. It has also meant that, contrary to what happened in other years where those with the lesser disabilities got fixed up first, those with greater disabilities, over whom there would be a much greater concern as to what would happen because of the cost factor, got equal if not priority treatment this year. I am not above giving recognition to the Minister of State for sorting out an issue that we had discussed with her.

It is very easy to say so many billions of euro are spent on disability.

There is always the old saying that there are lies, damned lies and statistics and that we spend €3.3 billion in social welfare on disability. Perhaps we do and perhaps we do not but ultimately, if those concerned were not getting a disability payment they would be getting some other social welfare payment. Since they are citizens of our State, it is not really an additional burden on the State because were they all suddenly to be out looking for jobs, would the Government have 100,000 jobs to give them tomorrow? In the case of people in receipt of invalidity pension, does the Government have 53,000 jobs to give them, were they all to seek jobs? As the answer is "No", one way or another they would be likely to be a burden on the Exchequer in any event.

Another point this society must accept is that while we are very good at times about extra money for everything, at other times we the taxpayers are very reluctant to give the money that is to be spent. In the long term, one cannot rely on borrowing for day-to-day expenditure and one can only pay out what one gets in. I always think that were Members to recognise some of the basic ground rules, they could do a lot more for people. They could target the money better and could be much more productive in this Chamber. I find that in the committees, one often gets away from this type of big-speech debate onto a much greater focus.

I wish to target an issue on which I was working while Minister for Social Protection and on which I regret not more progress has been made in the meantime. It was an issue that came up when the famous cutbacks were being considered. As the Minister of State and every practising politician is aware, from dealing with people in receipt of disability allowance and invalidity pension, the spectrum of cases moving from a jobseeker's allowance case into a disability payments case is a continuum. There are people on either side of the line for whom a case could be made to be on the other side of the line. However, as one goes further along the continuum, the disability becomes increasingly profound. Many people are receiving payments because they are not fit for work and are unlikely to be fit for work for more than a year but who do not have severe disabilities in the concept of what people understand severe disabilities to be. On the other hand, people are receiving those payments who are profoundly disabled. Some cannot walk, some cannot talk and others cannot do much for themselves at all. The entire spectrum is in play.

When I was in the Department of Social Protection, the officials had developed an idea on which I was very keen, namely, that for the first time ever in a scheme, one would grade disability from profound to moderate to mild. I introduced legislation for invalidity pensioners returning to the workforce to provide what was called partial capacity benefit. The Department decided it could differentiate and would stick its neck out and do so, although a person could appeal the differentiation, if he or she was not happy. This meant that someone who had a severe disability and who got a job would keep 100% of the payment, while someone with a moderate disability would keep 50% of the payment. If one had a mild disability and got a job, one would not keep the payment but would get it again automatically if one went back on invalidity pension. This was meant to be the beginning of a process that would have graded all disability and long-term illness payments or in other words, invalidity pension. Incidentally, Members should be honest about it, as the only main difference between the two is that in one case, people have a social contribution record and in the other, they do not. The idea was that having carried out such grading, one could then give a costed disability payment effectively. One could give a higher rate of payment to those with a profound disability, a slightly enhanced payment to those with a moderate disability and obviously, those with a mild disability would get a payment that was not much different than those of working age because one wished to avoid migration.

This issue became particularly acute when money became scarce, because I considered every way to avoid cutting payments to people with moderate and profound abilities. However, the problem was that the methods were not in place to do it within a three-month period. Nevertheless, I thought this approach should have been taken in the subsequent years and that it is vital to recognise that the more severe the disability, the higher the living cost. I have to hand figures stating 53,000 people are in receipt of invalidity pension, while 106,000 people are in receipt of disability allowance. In other words, approximately 160,000 people are involved and consequently, it takes a lot of money to give even an additional tenner a week to that number of people. However, if one segregates the categories, one might find that the number with a profound disability was actually quite low and that even in these times, one could afford to do something for them. The wider one makes the number of qualified people, the more difficult one will find it to do anything. If one takes 100,000 people at, say, €500 per week, that is €5 million to find and that is only at a tenner a week. However, if the number was much smaller, it would be much easier to do. This issue must be considered.

The second issue concerns employment and it is very sad to see that 106,000 people are in receipt of disability allowance. This means they did not have a contribution record that entitled them to an invalidity payment. Many of them probably never worked and one should not perceive work as being a burden on people. This is because in their heart and soul, while they may grouse about getting up in the morning, most people want to work. Moreover, it is well-attested in studies that because of socialisation of work and whatever, those who do not have somewhere to go to work enjoy worse health than those who do. This is even leaving aside any disabilities and applies even if one is merely unemployed. People should be afforded the opportunity to engage in the workplace. While I am unsure how it is working, an extension of the type of approach exemplified by the partial capacity benefit is needed. While I was Minister for Social Protection, I was very supportive of putting together all the schemes that facilitated people to get into employment in order that information was available. Moreover, I worked with the employability organisations to try to highlight that supports were available to employers to employ people. Some barriers did exist, such as, for example, people who moved from disability allowance into a work situation often lost free travel and many of them, because of their disability, could not drive a car. At the time, my Department and I were trying to find a way around that problem and Members should continue to work to ascertain what can be done in this regard.

Earlier today, I was talking about the community services programme. It is a great programme because it employs people in real work. It employs people doing things that need to be done and it gives them a wage. It is not like a community employment scheme or a Tús scheme, in that it actually gives people a real wage. Moreover, the employer can top up the wage if overtime is done and so on. All the organisations that employ people under this scheme must have their own income. Members should think of projects like the Dunbrody Famine Ship in County Wexford, Athenry Castle and many good examples nationwide. Some community facilities that are not open all day and which are not used to their full potential, despite the huge capital invested, could use such schemes. One idea I was developing at the time was that when groups were employing people under these schemes, the target groups, such as people with disabilities or Travellers, would have to form a certain percentage of the cohort of people employed. Consequently, if one created 1,000 new jobs and migrated money from disability payments over to such a scheme, the participants would be obliged to take a cohort of people and offer positions to them, in order that the playing pitch would be levelled in respect of employment. When most employers take on people with disabilities, they suddenly find that people with disabilities are very good workers and can make a huge contribution. Again, I believe the longer one is away from the workforce, the harder it is to break into it and there is no better way of breaking into the workforce then getting one's first job and somebody finding out that one is really able to do a job. Thereafter, one might move onto other employment.

As for disability services, I liked one sentence in particular in the Minister of State's speech. I have always had reservations about disability being under the auspices of the Department of Health. Disability is not an illness but is a condition and that is simply a statement of fact. Therefore, I perceive it to be more of a community issue than a health issue although I think most people perceive it to be a health issue.

It is about ensuring people have a proper lifestyle. The Government of which I was part introduced disability legislation and while it may contain flaws, at least it is on the Statute Book. Existing law can be built on, whereas the absence of law means one must draft new legislation. It was clear that a bedding down period for the legislation would be needed but progress has been made.

One of the most significant developments in recent years, and one to which the Minister of State referred, is the move away from congregational settings. We have a recognition in the education system and beyond, including in lifestyle choices, that the preference must be integration in the community and assisting people to live at home. It is widely recognised that this approach results in a better service at a lower cost. Nevertheless, one cannot count everything solely in money terms. One must also factor in the quality of the service provided. There is nothing wrong with providing better services for less money provided the setting is better.

I recall some houses that were rented, bought or built - preferably bought or built - and funded through various schemes. The aim was to move people from what would have been regimental settings into independent living. They included a fantastic development for people with significant disabilities run by the Brothers of Charity in Galway. I have visited the facility on a good number of occasions. Each person has an apartment in the complex, which also has communal dining rooms and so forth. It is worth visiting because a five star hotel would not be better, which is as it should be. We should not be shy about giving people the best, nor should we take the view that one cannot do things well because the money belongs to the State. In fairness to the developer of the estate in question, he had a social conscience and did things well and to a high standard. In fairness to the Brothers of Charity, they did a fantastic job. A great deal can be done to move forward, even when money is tight.

I noted the Minister of State's arguments on education, school settings and so forth. The other night I made a personal visit to a couple, both of whom are teachers. One of them is involved with students who have disabilities. I was disappointed to learn that while the set-up in the school in question is good until the junior certificate year, thereafter there are no challenges or proper programmes and supports in place for students with a disability. It is sad that children with disabilities are not being offered a programme that would lead to some qualification or a sense of personal achievement. It is not good enough to spend money until the junior certificate has been completed and then decide the job is done. We must ensure each individual can achieve his or her personal best.

I could have argued that everything the Minister of State is doing is wrong. She and I both know the challenges we face. I congratulate my colleagues in the Technical Group on tabling the motion. We must ask how we can persuade taxpayers to give more money for services. However, even with the money available to us, we could implement significant reforms that would result in the provision of better services.

See this speech in context