Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I assure Senators that the Government has listened long and hard to the many representations made in this area but any Government must strike a balance. If the roles were reversed and the Senators opposite were exercising the responsibility of office, no doubt they would find it difficult to improve on this legislation. I thank all Senators who contributed to this debate. From their comments, I know they took a tremendous interest in the Bill.

The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, was present to listen to many of the valuable contributions in the House and will read the extracts from today's debate. Much of what has been said relates to the five key points raised by the Disability Legislation Consultation Group, DLCG. These points were also presented by the group to the Taoiseach who has, as the Minister of State outlined last Tuesday, responded by setting out the Government's position. The Minister of State has also outlined that the group had sought a number of changes to the Bill. These are also being examined in the context of possible Government amendments.

In listening to the contributions, I am not sure that all of the Senators recognise the significant impact for persons with disabilities of the equality policies pursued by this Government since 1997 or the importance of the national disability strategy, of which the Disability Bill is but one element, launched by the Taoiseach.

When the Bill was presented to the House on 31 May, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, referred to the developments in policy and service provision for persons with disabilities, which have gathered momentum in recent years. We have had strong multi-ground employment equality and equal status legislation in place since 1998 and 2000, respectively. That legislation is among the most advanced in Europe. The equality infrastructure, which supports the equality agenda, comprises two elements, namely, the Equality Authority, whose role is to work towards the achievement of equality of opportunities and the elimination of discrimination and the Equality Tribunal, which makes determinations on complaints of discrimination and offers mediation in appropriate cases.

Experience indicates that the equality infrastructure is well used and recognised. We have seen successful cases taken by persons with disabilities where their right to reasonable accommodation in employment and in access to services and facilities were vindicated. Last year, the Equality Authority undertook a number of initiatives to promote the practice of providing reasonable accommodation among service providers. These initiatives and the positive outcome of equality cases are just two examples of the way current law and practice are influencing change — and not before time, as most Senators pointed out.

In June 2000 the Taoiseach launched the policy of mainstreaming public service delivery for persons with disabilities. Mainstreaming requires that public bodies, wherever practicable, deliver their services in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities, as well as to other citizens. The policy signalled the Government's commitment to move away from segregated service provision to a more inclusive model.

The mainstreaming ethos is particularly visible in the work of FÁS and Comhairle and it is supported by the work of the National Disability Authority. It is in this context of significant developments in equality and mainstreaming, which I have just outlined, that the Bill and the other elements of the national disability strategy are being implemented.

Some Senators have suggested that we have failed persons with disabilities and put the success of the economy first. Of course we must have a successful economy. It is precisely because we have one that we are now able to make these investments. Over the course of the past decade a thriving economic climate has been created in Ireland. We have recorded one of the best economic performances in the EU. From 1997 to 2003, the Irish economy, in GDP terms, grew by an average of approximately 8%, compared to an average of around 2.5% in the rest of the EU. The fruits of this economic success have been put to good use and are reflected in the increased investment in disability services. As the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, outlined on Tuesday, we have seen investment in disability services grow from €0.8 billion in 1997 to €2.5 billion in 2005. That represents a 3.5-fold increase in eight years.

Everyone in the House welcomes the new multi-annual investment programme for high priority disability support services providing an additional funding close to €900 million over the years 2006 to 2009. This will be focused in the health and education sectors. That is in addition to the further €150.5 million included in the 2005 Estimates. The Government is committed to persons with disabilities and this programme is evidence of it.

Many Senators have criticised the Bill because service provision is subject to resource availability. These same considerations apply to other public services which are equally in need of a fair share of Exchequer funding. The Government recognises that there is a historical deficit in disability services. A unique investment programme announced in the budget is being put in place to help address this issue.

Section 5 will require Ministers, for the first time, to make an explicit determination of the amount of funding they will allocate each year for the purposes of the Bill. In making these allocations, Ministers must weigh their various other commitments while giving a specific consideration to the disability element of their allocation. As a result, every Minister will make a clear commitment annually, pursuant to statute law, to spend a specified amount to advance the purposes of the legislation. Side by side, the national disability strategy and the Bill will establish disability as a key priority and will help to effect a rebalancing of resource allocation in a way that favours disability.

Some have found fault with the Bill because they say it is not rights based, in other words, it does not provide justiciable rights to services. They criticise the absence of direct access to the courts but they do not acknowledged the redress mechanisms in the Bill that will provide a user-friendly, low cost and speedy method of redress. I reiterate those rights, which include a right to an independent assessment of health and educational needs, undertaken in accordance with standards and without regard to costs or capacity to supply the services; a right to a related service statement setting out the services that can be provided within the resources available to the health or education service provider; and a right to redress through independent complaints and appeals mechanisms, including, ultimately, enforcement of decisions through the Circuit Court. That is a rights-based approach.

Listening to some of the Opposition proposals, it is clear that their plan is to involve the courts extensively in disability service provision. It is not equally clear how they would develop disability services — we know there are limitations in the present services — so that people who do not have services will get them. There has been no reference from the benches opposite about planned service growth supported by sectoral planning and prudent investment and that is the correct way to develop services. Law cases driving service delivery will inevitably result in uneven services being delivered throughout the country based on the random decision of the courts.

The Bill places a positive duty on public bodies to apply a 3% target in the employment of people with disabilities. It is reasonable to target public bodies in these positive duties, especially when all service providers — be they statutory or non-statutory, private or voluntary bodies — are already prohibited from discriminating against persons with disabilities under the Equal Status Act 2000. I am confident that the public bodies engaged in positive action to support mainstream employment of persons with disabilities will serve as models of best practice and in the coming years, will influence change in all sectors.

Many Senators have called for a clear right to an independent assessment of need. I assure the House that the Bill provides for an independent assessment to anyone who considers that he or she may have a disability, following an application to the Health Service Executive, HSE. Assessments will be commenced within three months of the application and will be completed without undue delay. Provision is also made under section 21 for regulations to set out more precisely the timeframes for assessment. The Bill also establishes a means of redress if an assessment is not provided or not provided in accordance with the prescribed standards. I am therefore satisfied that an assessment will be provided as a right.

Last September, the Taoiseach announced that a dedicated group had been established within the Health Service Executive which would explore the steps necessary to implement the Disability Bill within the health sector. The group is developing a sensible programme of action which will implement and underpin the delivery of Part 2 and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, is aware of this important task.

Some Senators believe that the assessment systems in the legislation are too complex and bureaucratic. Concerns have also been expressed about the independence of the redress system. It is important to recognise that the Bill establishes a new and dedicated framework to support the tasks of assessment, delivery of related services, help in accessing mainstream services and means of redress. These elements are sought by disability interest groups and are reflective of the commitments made in the programme for Government on this Bill. The appeals officer will be statutorily independent, will have strong statutory powers of investigation and will operate a separate agency with its own budget and staff. I draw the attention of Senators to Schedule 10 of the Act and to sections 16 to 18, inclusive, and 21 and 22, which equip the appeals officer with the powers to undertake a truly independent role.

Since the Government entered office in 1997, there have been notable milestones in policy for people with disabilities, including equality legislation, mainstreaming and, most recently, the national disability strategy. In the short time available for my reply, I was able to discuss only some of the major issues raised in this debate. Some significant differences exist between Government policy and the proposals made by Opposition speakers. These differences are reflected in the submissions from interest groups. Given the serious and lengthy debate on this Stage, I am aware that I can expect a variety of proposals on amendments. I look forward to exploring these important proposals on Committee Stage and thank Senators for their contributions.