Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister and the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on a Bill which has been in the making for a considerable time. There has been extensive consultation with virtually all the interested parties and groups throughout the country. It is unfortunate that there is not universal acceptance of the Bill among certain groups which would broadly represent elements of what is often referred to as the "disabilities sector", a label with which I do not agree. For various reasons, a number of people have difficulties with the Bill. The majority of those who find fault with the Bill have genuine personal reasons for doing so. There are specific examples and individual cases which lend credibility to their argument. However, a small minority are opposing the Bill for political purposes. That is unfortunate. I am not accusing the Opposition of that. Its members have strongly held views. It is regrettable that certain positions on this debate have been taken for political purposes.

I have consulted a variety of people from advocacy organisations and service providers and in particular those of my County Clare constituency. To the best of my ability, I attempted to understand their various concerns on this matter. It is clear that equality of esteem is wanted in terms of the State's dealings with people with disabilities. People with disabilities wish to be integrated into society rather than be labelled or pigeon holed in any manner. It is almost impossible to legislate for this. A change in culture is required. This will be difficult to achieve because such changes do not occur overnight.

A person with a disability should be accepted in the same manner as tall, small, thin or bald people. People with disabilities want to be seen as integral parts of society. The State should bear this in mind when introducing measures. Services should assist the integration of people with disabilities. These people do not want or need pity. They do not want us to consider their difficulties but to recognise their need to get on with their lives. It is important that they are accommodated in the same fashion as any other member of society.

Apart from its legislative provisions, the Bill sets out an agenda. By means of the public debate it has initiated, eyes are being opened to the importance of integrating persons with disabilities. This change of culture is significant.

It is necessary to address the culture of charity, which in some ways lets society off the hook. The impression is given that enough is being done if contributions are made to certain charities which cater for people with disabilities. However, this charity framework inhibits integration and increases isolation. A number of charities which are State funded service providers have charitable names, such as the Brothers of Charity, theSisters of Charity or the Daughters of Charity. The services they provide to people with disabilities are State funded but their names wrongly imply that such people are deserving of charity. They do not need charity but deserve equality. This may be done without legislation. I am aware that over the past number of years, Rehab and other disability organisations have ceased to use labels which carry charitable associations and are now service driven. It is not the case that people are in need of charity. These organisations include fantastic people who have acted as advocates and have worked diligently for many years to highlight the issues surrounding disabilities.

If isolation is to be avoided, funding must be consistent with the delivery of any other service. The Government has a good record in this. In 1997, 4.8% of gross current public expenditure, €800 million, was spent in the area of disabilities. This year, €2.9 billion will be spent, which represents a three-fold increase. This figure excludes income support measures and other social welfare provisions. It represents core disability funding. People should look at the Government's track record on funding rather than focus on rights-based elements. It must be ensured that the first budget cuts in tougher times are not, as some disability organisations fear, to the funding of disabilities services. We must begin with changes in culture and thinking, so that this disability area is not seen as a soft target when Exchequer expenditure is reduced. These changes have already occurred within the Cabinet and most political parties. I hope that the disability organisations which do not support the Bill will take some comfort from the Government's track record on spending in this area.

Objections to the Bill arise from the issue of entitlements to services within specified periods of time. Legislation is not necessary for a moral imperative on behalf of the Government and politicians in general to ensure that funding is made available. It is preferable that, rather than completely legislating for this area, it comes to be regarded as an element of society. The Bill is welcome, even if it does not resolve every problem, because it addresses the issue of disability and sets out a clear framework for delivery. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Governmentfulfils its funding commitments.