Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I am not sure the Bill has been welcomed in such unequivocal terms by many groups which work with people with disabilities. Like anyone with sense, they have recognised that it represents progress but I am not sure they believe they are anywhere near the top of the mythological mountain. Being able to see the top of the mountain is not the same as reaching it.

We have a major problem in this country, in terms of what passes for political discourse and debate among economists, regarding the concept of universal rights, particularly those of a social and economic nature. Two reviews of the Constitution have come down vigorously against the idea of any social and economic rights. Quite an ominous consensus — into which it is difficult to break with a sliver of reality — has taken over our country to the effect that there is something wrong about the idea of any universal social or economic rights.

We have one such right, namely, the right to primary education which is written into the Constitution. It is becoming increasingly clear that a good section of what passes for the intellectual class in this country, namely, those who are wheeled out to write articles for the Sunday Independent with alarming regularity and those who write in the business pages of even the most liberal of our newspapers, The Irish Times, takes for granted that any service must be limited and based on some means. There is also a universal belief that resources are limited and finite. The latter is not code for saying that we can only do 90% of what we want; it is actually a code for saying that we will only do 10% of it if the country is going through rough times.

The remarkable achievement of free universal primary education has been, first, to make primary education universal and, second, to make it essentially comprehensive in the sense that there is no selection, social or otherwise, other than that generated by geography. It has also made education, because it is for everybody, a very appealing career, with the result that we get extremely good primary teachers. Due to the fact that they are extremely good and organised, they are well paid by the standards of the rest of Europe. The consequence of this is that we have a very good primary education system, even though we spend proportionately less on it than any other country in Europe. The latter is connected with the universality of provision of primary education because parents from a variety of backgrounds share the same schools when their children are attending them.

Primary education, at least in the basic provision of good teaching, is one of the country's great achievements. A succession of international measures of achievement have demonstrated that in the topics covered by the curriculum, children coming out of our primary schools are in the top 10% or 15% internationally.

The universal guarantee of rights of access to service is a reality here and has worked extremely well. Anybody in politics ought to have a heart and a head, both of which ought to be functioning — although this is often questionable. Anybody with both will recognise that many elements of the Disability Bill will make a positive difference. However, it is not just carping politics to point out that the Government has taken the best part of seven years to draft this legislation. It is a commentary on priorities and what mattered most.

It is easy to say this was due to the need for extensive consultation. The need for extensive consultation only became a real issue after the public outrage that arose from the previous attempt to deprive people with disabilities of the right the rest of us to have our rights vindicated in the courts, which was quite extraordinary. It is always presented as an attempt to protect people from rapacious lawyers. On an entirely different matter another Minister once said here that he was attempting to prevent people from going to court to prevent them being ripped off by rapacious lawyers. It is the least convincing excuse.

The tragedy is that while in many cases administratively and organisationally we still seem not to learn from our mistakes, it is quite clear the Department of Finance learns from decisions of the courts and continues its campaign against universal provision. When all the dressing is removed, section 5, as written in plain English in the explanatory memorandum, essentially states that while a Minister should do his or her best — of course Ministers will do their best — he or she must not make more money available to meet the needs of people with disability than is possible while meeting his or her other responsibilities. This could mean no money being made available.

The capacity of people in some parts of the State sector to put the most perverse interpretations on legislation is one of a number of the more disturbing aspects of Irish life. I remember the experience of quadriplegics whose family members had cars adapted to be able to drive them. The Finance Act gave tax exemptions for car adaptations to people who lacked the capacity to use their arms or legs. The Revenue Commissioners maintained that people who lacked the capacity to use their arms and legs were not covered by the legislation and sustained a refusal to allow certain people the exemptions that were allowed to others. This is why the Houses of the Oireachtas need to be vigilant about legislation. While it is a mystery why they do so, some people are capable of putting the most peculiar interpretations on some matters.

I did not decide to speak here to carp. We all want to see progress. However, that progress has been slow and tedious and has not guaranteed resources. It has guaranteed that people will be told the Government knows of their needs but may not be able to do anything. While I support the amendment, I take issue with the first paragraph which states, "That Seanad Éireann recognises the frantic efforts of the Government to put a programme of action in place". I did not see anything frantic in taking seven years to make provision for people when we have been arguing about the need for it for approximately 20 years. I support the amendment notwithstanding my reservation on this matter.