Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I strongly support the points made by Senator Fitzgerald. I have lost count of the number of times that I have raised these issues, including the EPSEN Act and that fact that its implementation has not so much been put back but that it has not commenced. We welcomed this legislation on all sides of this House when it was brought forward. We were assured it would change the position of people with disabilities but the Government has simply shelved it. It is absolutely appalling.

A fair point has been made by the Government side at times, that cuts have to be made and every time a cut is proposed, that people on this side of the House will object to it. There may be some element of truth in that but we could also be given choices. The people - the Government will not like to hear this either - would be well ready to pay a couple of extra pence in taxation to ensure respite care and other such issues were maintained. Perhaps, Deputy Boyle, let us put that to the people. That is the thing to do. The Government funked this issue in the last budget and the budget before that. I am not talking about massive tax increases but we have said consistently here that public services need to be maintained and the only way that can be done is through revenue. That is an issue we have to examine.

There is an another issue, which is a good example of the same principle. The first item on the agenda of today's business is a motion to change of names of committees, which it is proposed will be passed without our taking any notice of it. I would like to get an impact statement on that. I would like people to be aware of what it means. What does it mean when we go to all this trouble to change the names of a Department? Are people aware that at a time when we are examining reform of the public sector that this proposed change will have an immediate impact? If the name of a Department is changed, it becomes a new Department and, as far as I know, the clock begins again, for instance, on the term of the Secretary General, which position is supposed to be a seven-year term. This proposed change also has contractual and cost implications. I would like a serious debate on why this is necessary and the impact in terms of costs and human relations in the Department in terms of contractual impact etc. This is a serious issue and this kind of motion slips through after every Government reshuffle etc. I ask that we discuss it.

It was with some reluctance, as the Leader will know, that I agreed on my own behalf to the time allocation of 15 minutes for spokespersons. I am not comfortable with it. I have never seen it happen here before. I indicated to the Leader that I have agreed to it but I do not think there is complete agreement with it on these benches. We have also decided on these benches, after deep discussion on it, that we will have a freedom of conscience vote and Members will have a free vote on these benches-----