David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I warmly commend all of the Independent Senators who sponsored this motion. We would certainly have given the motion our support, with the exception of the line "despite essential cutbacks required in the current economic climate". This was an area of concern. In the spirit of what has been proposed by the Independent Senators, we have no difficulty with agreed Seanad motions, particularly on issues as important as this. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned, that we should ask for the support of other groups and for the names of those Senators to be attached to motions. We would certainly have supported this motion and our amendment was in that vein and was submitted due to the language used in one paragraph of the motion. We were not against the substance of the motion at all as it is an excellent motion.

I welcome to the Public Gallery members from Inclusion Ireland, Amnesty International and a number of other advocacy organisations. I was unable to attend the briefing given by Inclusion Ireland, but was sent a copy of its presentation which puts into context what this motion is about. It stated that the thinking and philosophy around the area of disability has changed significantly over the past ten years, but services have not moved on. The current system is expensive and inflexible and the person or his or her family does not get to have much say in how the money is spent or to have a choice of service provider. Perhaps more important, the money is attached to the service and not the person.

Like Senator Zappone, I agree that the Government amendment is about aspiration whereas the motion tabled by the Independent Senators and the Sinn Féin amendment calls for a number of changes. These call for the publication of the value for money and policy review of disability services. What is wrong with that? Our amendment calls for best practice in terms of how money is spent in the disability services area. What is wrong with that? It cites a weakness in the labour activation measure announced by the Department of Social Protection. Even Government Members should agree with that. It calls for the bringing forward of a legal capacity Bill and the putting in place of modern capacity legislation. What is wrong with that? It calls for the putting in place of the national standards for residential services for people with disabilities and for putting these on a statutory footing. It also calls for proper, independent inspections. Therefore, the motion and our amendment call on the Government to do what we all believe the Government should do in the area of disability.

The main reason we cannot support the Government amendment is that it states we should recognise that some reductions in disability services will be unavoidable and welcomes the aim of the HSE to tailor such reductions in a way which minimises the impact on service users and their families as much as possible. I do not believe that cuts to services for people with disabilities are unavoidable or acceptable. Far from it. They are unacceptable and must be avoided. That is what the Government should be ensuring.

Apart from the proposals in the motion and in our amendment, I ask the Minister of State to consider the following. I call for the Minister to review the current Act as it relates to people with disabilities. My party fully supports a rights-based disability Act. I was in the Visitors Gallery when the Disability Act 2005 was brought in and was struck by the huge number of advocacy organisations and people with disabilities there who were not happy with the legislation being introduced. As legislators, we were bringing in legislation for people with disabilities with which people were unhappy. In fact, the Labour Party and Fine Gael voted against it at the time because they too wanted rights-based legislation. It is high time that when we, as legislators, introduce Bills we are conscious of the people who will be most affected and must avail of the services in question and that we ensure they are put at the centre of the legislation. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. There is also a need for robust enforcement mechanisms and the establishment of a new national disability strategy with real targets. One can put in place a number of documents and a strategy but setting the targets is what is important. We support the appointment of a disability ombudsman in the Department of the Taoiseach. We are putting forward clear proposals in order to be helpful to the Minister and to Government.

I warmly congratulate the Independent Senators for tabling this motion. I acknowledge the good work of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who has been in the Seanad for a number of very important debates, such as the debate on suicide, on carers and related issues. If we are to achieve all-party consensus, it can be given only when we have rights based legislation for people with disabilities. Neither my party nor I will be able to support anything short of that.