Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Senator needs to keep that in mind. The benefit of having a cohort of Independent Senators is that we are afforded the ability to have this type of approach. It is never overtly political.

I spent my afternoon trying to find a compromise on this issue. Ultimately, I realised I could not achieve one, but this is not the fault of anybody in this room. It appears that once there is a resource issue in respect of any motion, it is not possible to allow that motion to pass as it places an imposition on the Government to deliver virtually immediately. This is why the counter-motion was tabled. It is legitimate to state the drafter of a counter-motion always seeks to defend and present the opposite view to the motion, as put. Perhaps we need to examine seriously how we conduct business in this regard. We should consider trying to have more compromise and, therefore, more solutions to the difficulties that face us.

When coming here today, I knew I could not win the moral argument. How could one possibly do so? One does not have to be a mother to understand the difficulties and awfulness of the circumstances in which people find themselves. What struck me most about the contribution of Senator Mary Ann O'Brien was the reference to the smells and sounds of the family home. It is not something we always think of but it is clearly part and parcel of what we are.

The Senators on the Government side are, as Senator Mooney stated, obliged to support the Government's motion and they do so in the knowledge that they too could not win the moral argument. That is a position people find themselves in and it is no fault of theirs. Technically, it is my fault. If this debate proceeds to a vote, so be it, but I would prefer if there was none. Outside the budgetary process, there is nothing we can do in regard to the funding. I have spoken on two separate occasions, once today and once last week, to the Minister for Health about funding for palliative care for children. We did not reach an agreement.

However, I was encouraged by his statement that he wants to sit down with the organisations involved to discuss how to resolve the issue. It is not for me to say "Yes" or "No" on the organisations' behalf, but the invitation has been made. It is probably the first step in the process of coming to terms with an issue that needs to be addressed.

We could talk all night about who delivers the service. As we all know, several organisations deliver it in a caring and compassionate way. One of the organisations is the HSE, which we need to keep reminding ourselves is the health deliverer. Often, I meet people from the HSE who are quite demoralised by the continual undermining of their position. Specialist groups beyond the HSE also deliver health services that, in some cases, the State would find difficult to provide for the same type of money.

The value for money review tells us a great deal. I am convinced that we need to know much more. I am never certain where children with life-limiting conditions fit into the policy, for example, primary care, a patient-centred health service or disability services. Our spend on disability services will not just be ¤1.4 billion. That amount is a fraction of our overall spend and does not take into account what the State is spending in this regard on social welfare, education, transport, etc. We need an in-depth examination of how we are spending that money and the choices that people do not have.

The Senator and I have had long discussions. Could any Member imagine having a disability and spending his or her entire adult life attending a day centre every day? I could not. Perhaps people would like to go to a pub, a match or a park. These are the choices that we make every day. Perhaps parents would make different decisions for their children if we provided them with different choices. An option will not always be cheaper; some options will be more expensive because they will be delivered in different settings by different people. In the main, this is a question of choice and allowing people to live worthwhile lives. Be one a young child or an adult, the right to choose the life one lives is fundamental.

As to dividing on this motion, there is not much between us. The Government faces a resourcing difficulty, for which reason we cannot withdraw the motion if it is put to a vote. I apologise for putting people in a position in which they must take these decisions. I hope that the invitation will be accepted and that we can start the process.