Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. It is timely that we are considering this issue at the beginning of a new year. It is difficult to have a general debate on this issue without people becoming very emotional. Given that most of those involved in this area have personal responsibilities, their views on the issue are understandable. While I do not know the rights or wrongs of dealing with mental health services, we should consider a number of fundamental issues.

It is important to note that we are dealing with people on two levels, namely, physical disability and intellectual difficulty. At adult level, this now reflects something we, in education, have been trying to cope with for many years. Some 20 years ago, which is not so long ago, special education was a clean-cut issue, divided into nice little categories. We had physical disability on the one hand and various levels of mental disability on the other and never the twain should meet. When we became more expert in identifying problems, it became increasingly common to find that people had a combination of problems. For example, a person with physical disability, perhaps a child with Down's syndrome, may also have had a mental difficulty.

I am trying to use politically correct terminology in this debate. Many years ago, in my former life, I found it is easier to speak about something as I saw it, rather than trying to go along with the fashion of the times. The various words used to describe ability, disability, handicap and so forth change with fads every ten years. What was acceptable ten years ago, for example, is often unacceptable now. One of the problems is that people attach different meanings to different words.

As a teacher, I was conscious that parents used to try to decide which school or educational institution was most appropriate for their child. Should their child attend a school catering for mental disability or one for children with physical disability? This resulted in schools becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, with students having multiple handicaps — excuse the term — or disabilities. This created all sorts of problems in the Department because it was structured to deal with nice, clean, simple categories of disability, an issue which the Leader and I jointly addressed on a number of occasions. For instance — the Minister of State will bear me out on this — as recently as 20 years ago I could not convince the Department of Education that there was such a condition as autism and it refused to recognise it. I also had difficulty convincing teaching colleagues that a certain condition led to people finding it difficult to read to the extent that they would read words in reverse and believe them to be real. This has always been a difficulty.

In the 1950s, one of the reasons Senator Jackie Brosnan, one of my predecessors both in the House and in the INTO, became a founder member of the National Adult Mental Handicap Institute, NAMHI, was to try to create awareness. During that decade, the INTO established a fund to bring British experts in the area of mental health, remediation and the teaching of children with difficulties to various towns here, including the Leader's town, to explain to parents that these were important needs. This was a time when to label a child was almost like pronouncing a sentence of death. We have come a long way since.

What is being reflected today is an issue the education system grappled with 20 years ago. It would be useful to talk to some of those involved in the administration of special education at the time. They had to come here to tell us that one cannot divide people up cleanly and according to difference because life was not that simple and there were different kinds of disability which had to be addressed together. I ask that Senators consider the issue from this point of view.

While I do not wish to reopen the row about rights-based legislation, I understand both sides of this argument, namely, the view that the State should be prepared to cater for citizens with disability or special needs and the argument made by Governments that to make this a constitutional or legal right would result in the courts becoming clogged up. Both sides are wrong. I do not share the Government's concern in this regard, particularly that of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who has consistently taken this position for many years. I have always disagreed with him on the basis of my belief that if one is fair and does one's best, one will succeed. The way to do it is to look after people in this way subject to the State being able to do so. That is what it boils down to. It will always be subject to whatever resources are available. We should be brave enough to say that, which brings me to my next point, which is fundamental.

In a parallel discussion today, a Member took me to task on what I had said about the workers in Aer Rianta. I will not raise that debate now, so the Acting Chairman should not be worried. Having said how important it was that the Minister took a strong stand with those workers, he went on to talk about the extraordinary difficulties faced by elderly Irish men, in particular, in London. If we take people out of permanent jobs, will we not have to look after them at some stage in their lives? Should we not try to strike a balance? The same applies in this case.

There is a danger in society that we are not as connected to each other as in the past. When everybody lived in a provincial town, a rural area or even in a small city — there were communities within small cities — if there was somebody living down the road who had a child with a difficulty or a special need, everybody on the road was aware of it and everybody helped out and looked out for them. If the child was not fully responsible for themselves, one could be sure that if neighbours saw him or her go beyond the end of the road, they would call somebody. In that way, we all bought into it. That is not happening anymore. It is not that people are more selfish, although that is the way it is often presented in the media. People are not aware of what is going on; they do not have to deal with it themselves and they do not see their neighbours dealing with it. People suffer or conduct their business behind curtains and they are expected to carry on. What is happening as a result is that a person with a disability is becoming an extra tax on his or her parents, family and friends. That is emotive language but that is, effectively, what is happening.

This issue has always been there but it is a bigger problem now in terms of what we are discussing. Things have moved on. Nature is wonderful; it dealt with this in previous generations by means of life expectancy. In most cases, many of the people who had these types of problems did not have long lives. There is nothing as bad now as meeting the parent of an adult child who comes under the categories about which we are talking today. These parents spend their lives worrying about what will happen to their child when they die. These are the issues on which we need to reassure people, and this could be done through openness. All people want to know is that the community, which means us, will do its best. I do not see this as a party political issue. Those of us on this side of the House should never be happy with how much the Government does in these situations and I do not believe those opposite will ever be happy either. I imagine the Minister of State will never be happy that he can do enough. That is the way it should be and we should apply pressure constantly.

Will the Minister of State try to sell this to a cynical public? We need to put more resources into this area. Whatever happens, we must prioritise this issue, and not only when somebody wishes to run out and use the old cliché about the most vulnerable group in our society, which could be said of approximately 20 other groups. This is a group of people for which we can do something and which we can support in a positive way.

The most attractive aspect of it is that the more we do for these people, the more they can contribute to society. Many of these people have a contribution to make, which can be positive and from which we can all gain. I have often heard it said by those working with people with various disabilities that the response of people with needs reverberates through the helpers and creates a more open society, makes people feel good about themselves and about society and, consequently, raises the level for everybody. That is important but it must be on the basis of Government subvention and investment. That is the Minister of State's job. He will never do it well enough as far as I am concerned but I will be happy as long as he is not doing it well enough as far as he is concerned and then I will believe people are doing their best.