Martin Conway (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to go over the ground covered, as most Members on both sides of the House would understand my commitment to the issue. I welcome to the Gallery Mr. Jonathan Irwin, for whom I have a huge regard, with Senator Mary Ann O'Brien. I notice our colleague from the other House, Deputy Mattie McGrath, is also in the Seanad, keeping an eye on proceedings. Perhaps he has an ambition to join us at some stage. Either way, this issue is of such importance that I would regret a division of the House on it. I do not doubt the integrity or intentions of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and the Government.

It can be said about this House that issues pertaining to people with disabilities have received considerable attention during the short period of the 24th Seanad. We have had numerous discussions and a couple of well worded Private Members' motions, with the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, in the House on a number of occasions. Senator Mooney may have been present when I credited the work done by a former Minister of State, Mr. John Moloney, during his short period responsible for disability services. He established a value for money audit published last July. The recommendations of that audit were fairly well figured out by many people involved in the disability area. The simple concept was that money should follow the client. That approach should percolate through the various disability areas.

I have spoken on numerous occasions about what I would describe as the obscene salaries of some chief executives. Senator Mulcahy may have referred to this in previous discourse. Some chief executives on this small island of ours are paid in excess of ¤300,000 per year. They are in charge of non-governmental organisations providing support to people with disabilities. On the other hand, people like Mr. Irwin commit their lives to bettering the position of people and infants with disabilities. It is a crying shame that during the course of the Celtic tiger, the type of provision being discussed in this debate was not dealt with and that we threw money at problems without identifying solutions.

I am convinced that the ¤1.5 billion mentioned by the Minister of State for providing support for people with disabilities is the start. That funding is adequate to provide all the support mechanisms in the State for people and children with disabilities but the problem is that it is channelled inappropriately. It is most likely that 70% to 80% of the money is spent on administration, renting buildings and paying inflated salaries that are protected by various mechanisms. We must get real about these resources. We are effectively a broke country in a programme, and even today we are still spending ¤1.5 billion on support services for people with disabilities. Where is at all going? That should be an ample amount to provide quality care for infants, young adults and people in general with disabilities. We will not go over the recent personal assistant debacle but it is worth noting that one personal assistant hour costs ¤28 or ¤29, with ¤12.50 being paid to the person doing the work. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where that practice is allowed prevail. Everything must be put on the table in a mature, realistic and determined approach to improve this process. I do not want to see a vote on this motion but we are in a democracy. Senator Mary Ann O'Brien is very passionate and committed to the work she has done and she has proved this in action, not just words. It is her call. I appeal to people to realise that there is a genuine sense of sincerity in all quarters, including the Government.

They are dealing with a very difficult and precarious situation. The Minister of State spoke about the budgetary process. Unfortunately, Governments must abide by systems and bureaucracy. There is little choice because if one breaks the budgetary process, myriad people will criticise one for doing so and one is brought before the Committee of Public Accounts and so on. There is a process. We might not like it but if the intentions are there and if the door is open to meaningful dialogue while this budgetary process maxes itself out ahead of the next one, I hope the well meaning invitation will be taken up not only by the Senators but by the NGOs whose chief executives are not on the ¤4,000 and ¤5,000 per week pay scales.

I want to see sincere and genuine engagement where realism is the name of the game but, unfortunately, not all the NGOs are like the Clare Crusaders, the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation or the other organisations which do fantastic work. They will have to start to look at their systems and into their hearts and realise that money, which has been wasted, could be put to far better use by creating schemes, such as that proposed.