The legislative and regulatory process for the Disability Welfare Services Law has reached a stalemate after Welfare Minister Haim Katz ordered the withdrawal of the regulations intended to implement the law from the Knesset’s Labor and Welfare Committee table. The decision was made at the last minute, just as committee members were set to vote on the matter. This move will result in a further delay in the implementation of the law following four years of collaborative efforts by the Ministry of Welfare and the Knesset.
The law's primary objective is to codify the right of people with disabilities to independent living within the community, while reducing dependency on multi-resident housing facilities and tailoring welfare services to diverse personal needs. Under this framework, support levels and community-based solutions are meant to be established under a dedicated budget.
The core of the deep dispute that halted the process lies in the inclusion of individuals with mental health conditions under the law. While the Ministry of Welfare argues that this population should be served via the Rehabilitation of the Mentally Ill in the Community Law, which falls under the authority of the Ministry of Health, many committee members and civil society organizations have opposed their exclusion.
During the discussion, Adv. Tzipi Bar Levav, Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Welfare, rejected claims of disregard for these populations and emphasized that the Ministry's position is based on existing legislation. In contrast, Committee Chair MK Michal Woldiger reacted sharply, labeling the move as "callous" and heavily criticizing the Minister. Conversely, MK Adi Azouz criticized the committee chair, arguing that attempting to include those with mental health conditions without additional funding could harm the limited resources already earmarked for people with disabilities.
The Ministry of Welfare clarified in its response that it opposes a budgetary "hijack" that could, in its view, harm the most vulnerable populations within the disability community. The Ministry claimed that including an additional population without a suitable funding source would deplete the resources of the original law. As of now, the regulations remain unapproved, and it is unclear when the issue will return to the agenda or if the professional and political dispute will be resolved in a way that allows for the advancement of the legislation and the regulation of vital services for the target audience.