Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

In response to Senator Terry's question, the Long Title takes its present form because it reflects the provisions contained in the Bill. This is a cross-cutting Bill, involving several Departments and, as Senator Dardis has said, it is necessary that the Long Title of the Bill reflects the provisions therein. This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that has ever been brought before the Oireachtas. It was five years in gestation, involved 11 different Ministers and the Taoiseach has admitted that it took up more of his time than any other piece of legislation since he became a Member of the Oireachtas.

Every piece of legislation has a provision in it, in some shape or form, which states that it is subject to resources. It is stated in this manner in this legislation because of the cross-cutting nature of the Bill, reflecting the provisions therein. Senator O'Meara mentioned the issue of rights. If the Labour Party and Fine Gael were in Government tomorrow, I predict that they would not be able to introduce justiciable rights-based legislation. Justiciable rights are not in any legislation in any part of the world, with the possible exception of South Africa. Even the most forward-thinking countries like Great Britain, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden do not have justiciable rights-based legislation. It is not possible.

I examined the issue when I went into the Department, the Bill having been published at that stage. It comes down to the simple question as to whether we want the Four Courts to run the country or the Oireachtas. Senator Dardis is right in that it is not a question of either rights or resources. Senator O'Meara has posited that it is a question of either-or, but it is not. Even if one had justiciable rights-based legislation, as is the case in education, that would not guarantee proper services for people with disabilities. When one examines the experience in education, for every €1 given to people who sought educational services through the courts, €4 was paid to lawyers. If one examines the high profile cases of recent years, they did not bring about the desired results. I am convinced that people are being led astray by talk of justiciable rights by those who are propagating that idea. I have heard a large amount of uninformed comment about justiciable rights in the past six months, all of which is coming from the same source and it is wrong. It is not about rights or resources. There are rights throughout this Bill, but there is no justiciable right and I am convinced that this is in the best interests of people with disabilities. Having said that, I reiterate that the challenge for this and future Governments is to ensure that it is not necessary for people to resort to the courts to have their rights vindicated.

This Bill will underpin the phased expenditure of the money required to bridge the gaps in services that exist at present and which we all accept are urgently in need of being bridged. For that reason, it is not necessary to accept this amendment and the House should, in good faith, accept the bona fides of the Bill and the provisions it contains, as reflected in the Long Title.