Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

I am anxious to listen to as many members as possible, but I am equally anxious to ensure there is a right of reply, when I sit down.

There is not much difference between us; it is a matter of emphasis, as some have pointed out. I am not in the business of telling people how to vote except, of course, when I am asking them to vote for me in a general election. It is really irrelevant how the vote goes tonight because we will do what we will do. Having listened to the contributions of all Members tonight, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. We are all convinced that the way forward for people with a disability is on an entirely different path from what obtained in the past. I am convinced of that.

I apologise to the officials who have written an exceptional speech, which I read, but most of which I will not use. Many names were mentioned but let me take the opportunity to mention Mr. John Dolan, the chief executive of the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI.

Issues must be dealt with but the debate has highlighted the need for a radical change in how people with disabilities are allowed to live in the same space we live in. We have put so many barriers in their way, they cannot participate fully, whether in education or in services. I am not inclined to refer to the health service when I talk about disability. People with disabilities tell me they are not sick. They have been defined by a medical model as people who are sick, but they are not sick. One particular man who lives a very independent life says to me that he is not sick, but when he is sick he will go to this doctor, who will admit him to hospital if he is very ill. How we define people with a disability is very important. What is critical is the introduction of radical change.

When I addressed my first conference as the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, I was asked by a member of the audience to state what I hoped to achieve in the area of disability. I rattled off my list, standards, legislation and individualised budgeting. As I left the podium, the person organising the conference stated that I would never see them. The value for money audit, which was initiated by the then Minister of State, the former Deputy John Moloney, is almost completed and will be published in the near future. That will tell us where, on whom and on what we are spending our money. The individualised budgeting will follow from the value for money review. We have a policy group working on it even though it has not been completed and it is not published.

We must ask people with disabilities how they want to spend their day. I listened to a most incredible man, Mr. Tom Shakespeare, last week at the launch of the World Health Organisation's report on disability. I said I would buy his name from him because it is invaluable in terms of politics. He said that when one is dealing with people with disabilities, one must ensure they are educated more than anybody else, because they will never be able to do the physical work that others are able to do. I am not solely responsible for the delivery of education.

It is proposed to publish the legislation this session. However if we are serious about the use of language, and I think language is very powerful, should the proposed legislation be entitled the mental capacity Bill? Should we even be using the term "mental capacity"? I know the thought of reviving that argument, with the possibility of delaying the Bill sends a shiver up everyone's back. Should we be talking instead about assisted citizenship? Should we get away from the concept of graduated capacity, with able bodied people having full capacity but others having graduated levels of capacity. Should we think in terms of all people being equal citizens, with some people needing additional supports to access that citizenship? Are we prepared to delay the legislation to get that right?

I am not certain of the response to that question. On the one hand, people will say, publish and be damned, others would see it as magnificent to be a world leader by 2016, the centenary of 1916. If we are to have a serious debate, other issues need to be looked at, such as individualised budgeting. There are certain organisations that have skilled their people to roll with this now, and are doing it anyway because they are taking portions of the block grant, and asking their clients what they want to do and how they want to live independently. The idea that the Department of Health would be solely responsible for people with disability is ridiculous. Where do people with disabilities live, if they want to live independently? Surely that is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. This applies to services such as transport, education, social welfare.

The disability strategy group was always at the centre of Government but was so limited it was worrying. The advice was to consider getting rid of it, but I said no to that suggestion and decided to put people, who have lived with disability on to the group and deal with each Department individually, asking its representatives to tell the group what it is doing in relation to the service for people with a disability. That is the focused approach we are bringing to bear. We have now for the first time, the city and county managers in the group, because they are decision makers; for example, it is they who make decisions on public lighting, footpaths, public seating, the location of the bus stop and so on. It is not rocket science - we can send people to Mars, yet are we saying we cannot do this. Of course, we can do it.

I do know the reason it takes hours and hours of professional involvement to tell a mother her child needs a speech therapist, or hours of professional involvement to tell her a child needs an occupational therapist when the child cannot sit properly. We must stop spending money in this way.

I am not a person who bashes service providers. They did a job when the State refused to do it. The State paid for it but they did the job the State was not prepared to do. Times have moved on and now we must accept that things will be done differently. Service providers will continue to be required to deliver their service, within budget, to those who wish to access them.

Was it the women's movement which first argued that if one is serious about equality, one must become blind to gender? Perhaps we must become blind to disability, while fully accepting that certain people need help to access services and the necessary social supports.

The capacity Bill will not be cost neutral as we will have to establish what will be known as a circle of support. We will have guardianships and will not always rely on families because they will not always be around. The ward of court system is outdated, expensive and cumbersome and should have been abolished years ago. This legislation will abolish it and guardians will be appointed instead. We will also have a guardianship office because safeguards will be required to ensure complaints can be made when guardians fail to do their jobs properly or in respect of decisions, whether assisted or otherwise, which they take in tandem with the person with the disability.

Capacity is a peculiar thing. We are told we make most of the important decisions in life in a split second. I do not know about Senators but I have made some big mistakes in my time. Why on earth do we believe that people with disabilities do not have the capacity to make decisions about their relationships, lives and medical conditions, where they wish to live or whether they wish to have children or make a will? Some people will require a great deal of assistance to make such decisions while others will need very little assistance. I know a young woman with an intellectual disability who could mind mice at a crossroads.

The assumption that we are all the same is wrong. What I have said is not vague or aspirational. The Bill and value for money report will be published in this session and individualised budgeting will be introduced. While it will not be for everyone, anyone who is interested in being involved will receive every assistance necessary to do so. It is important to be part of the mainstream and be able to do things such as add one's name to a local authority housing list. This will not be cost neutral but the substantial budget available to us will be spent in a different and more focused manner. We should take to heart the saying, "Nothing about us without us", which is often used by people with disabilities.

There are far too many organisations representing people with disabilities. They need to be streamlined because the notion that every one of these organisations needs an administration backroom is crazy.

While I do not believe there is much separating me and the Opposition, I will not tell Senators how to vote. I appreciate having opportunities to speak in this House on subjects about which I and Senators clearly feel passionately. I once turned down a request that I run for the Seanad when I lost my seat. Perhaps this is my punishment. I thank Senators for listening to me. The plans I have outlined are not aspirational but will be implemented. They are radical and different and will meet opposition from different quarters. With determination, I hope we will succeed.