Maurice Hayes (Independent)

While I share Senator Bannon's objectives, I do not share his opinion of this Bill. We are all committed to normalising as much as possible the lives of people with disabilities by enabling them to play as full a part in society as their capacities permit. These capacities should not be underestimated or obstructed by statutory barriers. People should not believe that they cannot cross a certain threshold to their development. I approach these issues with optimism. All public bodies, including those engaged in the development of services, must strive to ensure all citizens are normalised and treated equally.

Certain logical consequences ensue from this. One cannot demand to be treated the same as every other citizen while also arguing that resources should be allocated without regard to others' needs. The phrase in the Long Title, "consistent with the resources available", is a wise provision and one which I support. To do otherwise is to advance the proposition that resources are infinite. We are all aware that they are finite and that hard choices must be faced. Judgments must be made by means of the political process rather than the courts. We must recognise the needs of handicapped people and their salience to society. They will be demeaned if they are not given every possible assistance to express their own views. They are now represented by strong lobby groups and have the power and strength to play a role. They ought not be put into a ring-fenced ghetto where they are fed on money and services. We should take a more inclusive view of their role in society.

If no regard is shown for resources or if these are ring-fenced, the distortion of other services is threatened. Recently, I witnessed an example of this in Northern Ireland, where an unintended consequence of the assertion of the rights of children with certain degrees of handicap to care assistants was that the education board had to lay off school patrolmen and dinner ladies and close libraries. Resource allocation, which is a function of the democratic process, must be examined in the round. People may, if they dislike a certain policy, vote against a Government. This is not a matter for the courts, partly because judges do not have any money.

I look forward to discussing this Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. The provision in section 8(5) that assessments be made without cost is a potential hostage to fortune. I understand that the implication is that people should not be refused a service due to lack of precedent. A cost element is involved if required services may only be provided outside the State. Provision cannot be made in this State for certain types of handicap because it may not be economic to do so for one or two people. The necessity to send people outside the State should be implicit in the legislation.

I take it that the provision in section 21 for the prescription of qualifications means that the assessors mentioned in section 10 will be appropriately qualified, whether as doctors, physiotherapists or educational psychologists. Section 11(7) makes reference to a lack of resources within a financial year. I hope it is understood that some people may need lifetime care rather than have to apply anew every year. Assessments should involve a commitment to make care available for as long as it is needed.

The reference to search warrants in section 23 strikes me as draconian. I wonder why this measure was included in a Bill such as this. The powers in question seem to be more suitable to the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The Defence Forces and the Garda are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. While I wonder why this is so, firemen might also be excluded. Certain positions in both forces require a level of physical fitness but many others do not. An increasing number of jobs within the Defence Forces and the Garda are being civilianised. Fulfilment of the duties of telephone assistant or office worker does not require hard physical labour. It would be worthwhile to clarify whether such work is carried out by civil servants and therefore subject to enforcement under this legislation.

I welcome the provision for a centre of design excellence and the arrangements which may be made between it and other institutions. This centre should be situated in an existing school of architecture so that the wheel is not reinvented. It should be part of the mainstream rather than involve a small group of people who think great thoughts. Designers of houses, public buildings and methods of access should refer to the centre's ideas when making plans.

More is needed than the arrangements of Departments. Culture must change and society shift the way in which it relates to people with handicaps. People must be assumed capable of action rather than doubted. They will be capable if they are provided with opportunities. I welcome that the Bill draws attention to the necessity for sectoral plans. I appeal to disabled persons' representative groups which are dissatisfied to work towards improving matters. My basic point is that it is a distortion of the notion of equality and normalisation to ring-fence money to make applications come through the courts. It would be wise in light of references which have been made if the President were to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court. To avoid endless litigation, it would be prudent to examine the provisions in the Bill to ensure they accord with the State's obligations under various human rights laws and the rights of the people concerned. I welcome the Bill and look forward to considering it further on Committee Stage.