I understand Deputy Fitzgerald is sharing time with Deputies Boylan, Richard Bruton, Ring, Neville, Ulick Burke and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
Private Members' Business. - Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001: Second Stage.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It gives me great pleasure to open the Second Stage debate on this important legislation, Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001, which seeks to enshrine in law the rights of people with a disability. As the preamble to the Bill states, this legislation seeks to promote and protect the rights of persons with a disability and, in particular, to secure the fair, simple, speedy and efficient resolution of complaints relating to infringement of those rights. It provides for the appointment of a disability commissioner charged with responsibility for a draft code of disability rights and for the promotion, respect for and observance of those rights and the investigation of breaches of the code, among other responsibilities.
The Bill also seeks to establish important substantive rights – a right to an assessment of needs and the services which will be required to fulfil those needs. The Bill has been initiated and promoted by the National Parents and Siblings Alliance, and Fine Gael is proud to introduce it to the House and seek all-party support for its enactment. I acknowledge and applaud the initiative and dedication on this and other issues in relation to people with disability which the National Parents and Siblings Alliance and the many children, parents and families who support its work have shown over many years.
The raison d'être for the Bill and the disability commissioner which it seeks to establish comes from the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities entitled, A Strategy for Equality. An excerpt from a submission to the commission reads:
People with disabilities do not want to be pitied, nor do they want their disabilities to be dismissed as of little importance. All that is required is respect and basic needs and basic rights. Surely that is not too much to ask?
The commission, reporting only a few years ago, concluded:
People with disabilities are the neglected citizens of Ireland. On the eve of the 21st century, many of them suffer intolerable conditions because of outdated social and economic policies and unthinking public attitudes. Public attitudes towards disability are still based on charity rather than on rights, and the odds are stacked against people with disabilities at almost every turn.
Rights are what we are attempting to enshrine in law here tonight. The commission report continued:
Whether their status is looked at in terms of economics, information, education, mobility or housing, they are treated as second class citizens . . . They want, and are entitled to, equality and full participation as citizens.
That is the background and the culture from which the Bill emerges. I acknowledge that it emerges from frustration at almost five years of promises which have, so far, proved hollow. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to debate, on this or any other evening, a Government sponsored comprehensive disabilities Bill. This vital legislation, promised by Fianna Fail in opposition, has had an extremely long genesis. The
latest Government legislative programme promises the Bill will be published before the end of this session. I hope the Government will show good faith by accepting this Bill tonight as initial legislation to enshrine these rights in law in the fifth year of the Government's term of office.
Publication of a Bill is an important milestone, but enactment of a Bill into law may be a long and difficult road. No disabilities Bill has yet been tabled in the House. Here, in the Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001, we have live legislation, which, while not the panacea for all ills, is an honest attempt to address the real needs of people with a disability and move the agenda forward at more than a snail's pace.
I remind Members that in the aftermath of the Sinnott case earlier this year Government promises came thick and fast. The Minister promised a Disabilities (Education and Training) Bill; where are the plans and the consultation in relation to it? The Minister promised to recruit additional psychologists; how many have been recruited? I was recently told that certain schools must now choose which children to send for assesment, so tight are the opportunities for such assesment.
The Government announced the establishment of a special needs education forum to contribute to the elements which will make up the StateWP extended char 4,28s comprehensive response to the needs of people with disabilities. The first meeting was to be held in September 2001. On 9 October 2001 no one has yet received an invitation to participate, yet the Taoiseach has been in Europe espousing his long-term commitment to the issue of life-long learning. It is a bitter irony that he espoused this commitment on 29 March this year, the third day of the State's appeal in the Sinnott case.
An Action Programme for the Millennium promised much. An extract reads:
Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats in Government are committed to radical change to ensure that the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities, their families, carers and advocates are comprehensively addressed. Our policy is based on the core principles of promoting empowerment through appropriate, accessible and responsive services.
Despite these commitments, despite the priority afforded to the needs and rights of persons with a disability in partnership agreements, despite the recommendations of reports such as, A Strategy for Equality, and despite the raising of public consciousness, for people with a disability, for their families, carers and advocates, change is coming about painfully slowly. This point is graphically illustrated by the fact that three years after its publication and acceptance by Government some 80% of the recommendations in the report remained unfulfilled.
There has been some improvement in the area of legislation such as the Employment Equality Act, 1998, the Equal Status Act, 2000, and the National Disability Authority Act, 1999. These are important milestones, but not enough. The Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001, will give strong additional supports to families and individuals in terms of ensuring their rights are vindicated in Ireland. Some changes are taking place, but the signs of delay and vacillation are clear to see, as examples show.
In 1999, within three months of the receipt of the Franklin D. Roosevelt award which honoured Ireland for "reaching further and doing more" for people with disabilities, those people were for the third time in 18 months protesting at the gates of Leinster House because a vital transport service was discontinued because of lack of funds. Some progress has since been made, but this is still a real issue.
For people with disabilities there is no fully accessible comprehensive public transport system. The United Nations citation for the international award states that Ireland has "set the pace" and that "Ireland has reached farther and done more" to advance the cause of people with disabilities. However, the contrast between this international recognition of legislative achievement and the reality of the day-to-day struggle for even the most basic rights in the lives of people with disabilities throws into sharp focus the inherent contradictions.
One of the submissions detailed in the Strategy for Equality report explains the situation as follows: "It appears to us that the parents of a disabled child face a lifetime of fighting each and every agency and Department for their rights and the rights of their child." We saw this earlier this year and we see it in current and upcoming court cases. This statement will strike a particular chord with Catherine Sinnott and the many parents who followed the Sinnott case, as with the hundreds of other mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters similarly engaged in the daily fight for the rights of their family members. It will also find a resonance with those people with physical disabilities who find themselves excluded from employment, education or social opportunities by lack of accessible transport, lack of aids or appliances, or lack of personal assistance. These are still major problems.
I remind the House of certain statistics. As we speak, 900 people with intellectual disability are on the waiting lists for residential services and 600 people with intellectual disability are inappropriately placed in psychiatric hospitals. Think of the consequences of that. Think of the reality of that, day in day out. It is simply unacceptable and the pace of progress is not fast enough.
We certainly need a rights culture in terms of basic rights for the disabled. Hundreds of people are in need of day care facilities. Thousands of people with physical disabilities do not benefit from day activity or development. It was very disturbing to read a report some months ago by the Irish Wheelchair Association on the confinement that is the daily lot of many people who are physically disabled. Many feel they are prisoners in their own homes and they do not get the supports to access what many of us take for granted on a daily basis. This legislation concentrates not on what people have, but what they need, basic needs like education, accessible transport, respite care and residential care, aids and appliances.
Ireland has been lauded for reaching further and doing more. The progress report Towards Equal Citizenship shows that the State is not willing to reach very far. In response to the five separate recommendations of the commission in relation to assessment of needs and the provision of services to address those needs, the Department of Finance issued an outright rejection. According to the report, the Department cannot accept underpinning by law of access to and provision of services for people with disabilities as a right. This right would be prohibitively expensive for the Exchequer and could lead to requests from other persons without regard to the eventual cost of providing these services. This is very serious and has to be questioned. What is the cost of not providing those services to our citizens and can we afford that cost?
These financially virtuous sentiments are chilling in the extreme and perhaps explain much of the resistance to the Minister being able to bring forward a comprehensive disability Bill. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us tonight on who is holding up the disability Bill. What Departments are holding it up and for what reasons? Are we saying that people's rights can be vindicated only if they are cheap. Is it value for money, not quality of life, fulfilment, independence or the achievement of personal goals that motivates legislation? It is, indeed, a challenge to democracy when financial matters become paramount. Are we cynical or responsible? Do we really know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
The premise for such an argument is roundly dismissed by the evidence of Catherine Sinnott to the Joint Committee on Education and Science just two weeks ago. She said:
In the context of the basic human right there are no financial considerations. Mr. Justice Barr explained that the financial planners must understand that before any other spending, the constitutional priorities, namely, the basic inalienable human rights, must be supplied and paid for. It could not be more simple . . . There can be no Bertie bowl while anyone is denied an appropriate primary education. Neglect is a false economy.
The move from the paternalistic, charitable model in relation to people with disabilities to a rights-based approach is inexorable. In his address to the annual human rights forum in Dublin in July of this year, Professor Gerard Quinn of NUI Galway eloquently identified the dangers inherent in the Exchequer-based arguments which he defines as "the danger that the public interest might simply be defined as the lowest common denominator." We cannot accept that situation for anyone but we certainly cannot accept it for people with a disability. Professor Quinn questions the power of the marketplace and how it affects those whose issues do not connect up with the permanent priority of economic viability or with other passing policy priorities. He trenchantly champions the move from the welfare model of dealing with people with disabilities to vindication of their rights. It is, he says, very simple. It is about moving away from viewing people as objects to viewing them as subjects, a move away from the view that people are problems to the view that people have rights and that their problems are largely of our making.
In the context of our response to the atrocities in the US, we have focused in recent days on our responsibilities in relation to UN conventions dealing with military responses to a global threat. This Bill, set in an international context, should highlight our obligations to people with disabilities. The UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights deals with the rights of persons with disabilities. The Minister is going to the UN and championing this while at the same time disability legislation is not coming into this House. This covenant states that it clearly requires Governments to do much more than merely abstain from taking measures which might have a negative impact on persons with disabilities. The obligation is to take positive action to reduce structural disadvantage.
The covenant also refers specifically to the right to have access to and benefit from those medical and social services which enable people with disabilities to become independent to support their social integration. This is what we are saying should happen at UN level and this is what this Bill is saying should happen in Ireland. We are asking the Government to support this Bill for Irish people at home just as they are supporting it at UN level. Support for the general thrust of this Bill may be presumed in comments made recently by the Director of the National Disability Authority. She described the issue of needs assessment as vital for people with disabilities. This Bill seeks to establish important principles. It seeks to establish rights and, equally importantly, the identification of needs, which must be vindicated and met by our society and we should delay no longer.
People with disabilities, their families, advocates or carers should not have to spend every day fighting an uphill battle. People should not have to take to the streets or the courts to demonstrate that they have a right to day care, respite care, education and training, and transport, yet we have seen people taking to the streets and organising public meetings within the past few months to try to vindicate those rights. It is no longer acceptable that people have to do that.
More than 350,000 people in Ireland have a disability. For too long, justifiable expectations of equal access and equal rights have exceeded a less than perfect reality. When rights are acknowledged they must be universally applied. When Ireland received the international Roosevelt award for services to persons with a disability, President McAleese said that "while we feel privileged and pleased to be the recipient country, we know that this award carries with it a serious moral obligation to ensure that we maintain and accelerate the momentum for change in disability-related policy and service provision." Commenting on the consequences of not taking rights seriously in the past, the President said:
We have failed our people with disabilities and, in the process, seriously damaged our society. How much talent has been wasted because people with disabilities have not been given the opportunities and means to develop their gifts?
This Bill gives an opportunity for these basic needs to be properly assessed, for the services to be put in place and for those rights to be vindicated. President McAleese continued:
How much genius has been lost forever to our world because of this? That loss has not only been a personal tragedy, it has also immeasurably impoverished our society.
I ask the Government to take heed of these words and to support this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I compliment our spokesperson, Deputy Fitzgerald, on her very well researched presentation. I hope the Government will accept this Bill without division. I have no doubt that there is an incredible amount of goodwill in regard to people with a disability, but goodwill without good work will not bring about the improvements that we see as giving equality to people with a disability. That is all we are asking for, nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution, the law of the land and the administrative structures of the State do not offer a guarantee to people with disabilities that they will be treated as full and equal citizens.
Often they do not have the voice to shout nor the strength to protest. Historically people with disabilities have stood at the back of the queue when resources were being given out. They need and are entitled to basic rights and the means to secure them.
Recently I had reason to peruse the manual for people with disabilities seeking a disabled driver's grant. I was appalled, saddened and disgusted at the criteria set down when it should be clear to a qualified person such as a doctor or nurse that the person is entitled to what they are seeking. One had to state whether one's right hand was disabled, one's left hand was disabled, one had the use of one's left leg or one had the use of one's right leg. These questions are embarrassing and totally unnecessary. In regard to the improvements in the home, simple things are important and will provide a little comfort in life to those who seek nothing more and should expect nothing less. Again they have to contend with the application form from the local authority and answer questions concerning how many and who lives with them, as if that matters.
If the person is disabled surely somebody will be living with them. Many will want their independence, with their own home specially adapted. However, they will have to answer a maze of unnecessary questions on financial matters. A person, such as the Minister would be capable of bringing that person to the local authority or going out to interview them and see at face value what these people are seeking. Nothing more and nothing less is required. People are becoming more independent. There are young people in the visitors' gallery with wheelchairs, some motorised, but where can they take them given all the obstacles?
We are looking to local authorities to provide simple things such as ramps and parking areas to be incorporated in ongoing developments but it is not happening. It is hassle all the way for these people who have to organise themselves. They have to stand outside chapel gates to fund raise That should not be necessary. They should not have to fund raise to bring about the improvements that will give them comforts in life. These people should be admired. They want to play their part in society, they want part-time work. If they have a disability pension and wish to take up part-time work they will experience difficulties. Should they succeed in getting part-time work their disability pension will be reduced. They cannot win.
I hope the Minister is listening. I plead with her to take the Bill on board and allow it pass through the House without division. If she does that she will have done a great service for the people in most need.
It is shameful that we are relying on outsiders to introduce a Bill to do this badly needed work, and I am dismayed that the Government is planning to vote it down. The Government has circulated a piece of paper saying it intends to introduce another Bill wider in scope. People have lived on promises made by successive Governments. Let us be honest, we are entering the last months of the Government and it will not get through the House a Bill that will provide the comprehensive response it needs. To say this is based on a philosophy of separation and segregation and opposing mainstreaming is incorrect. This Bill has been drafted by parents who have their children's interests at heart, and for a Minister to say the Government will not accept it for these bogus reasons is ridiculous.
It is time to shift our approach to citizens. The citizens of this country have rights. For much too long the provision of services such as education depended on the convenience of administrators and providers. That is the shift the Bill is seeking to make. It is a profound shift and one that, as recently as last year when the Education Bill was passed, the Minister for Education and Science refused to accept. That is the record of the Government. The Minister refused the right of appeal in relation to children with special needs. He refused to have a legal right of assessment built into the Education Act. These were opportunities which he refused to accept. Do not ask me to believe that the Minister will come back with a better Bill. We are into the last year of the Government and nothing has come from it in this area. Instead its response has been "No, No, No" to sensible proposals put forward.
The Department of Education and Science stands indicted in relation to provision for children with special needs. It has a constitutional right to provide primary care, but that is not being done. Fine Gael conducted a survey of parents of children with special needs. The reality is grim. It found that 65% of parents had to pay privately for the assessment, half of the parents found almost none of the additional supports in assessments was provided, they had to struggle for services for their children and schools were ignorant of the needs of children and were unable to provide the services necessary. Speech therapy is a good microcosm of the problem. The Department of Education and Science must recognise that speech therapy is essential to any education, yet it does not provide one speech therapist. The Minister for Education and Science is responsible for education, yet he will not provide a single speech therapist. He depends on another Department to come up with speech therapy.
That is not right's based, that is meeting the turf wars of Departments. It is wrong that the Minister of State should hide behind civil servants who offer her weasel words in amendments, asking us to throw out a well thought out Bill which is workable and which, if necessary, can be amended on Committee Stage if bright ideas come from those Departments. I appeal to the Minister of State not to accept the advice given to her as grounds for rejecting the Bill. This is a sound Bill which is based on the principle of citizens' rights. It proposes an ombudsman so that people can vindicate their rights and those who are powerless will have someone in a position to take the necessary action. Too many parents have to go to court to get their constitutional rights, and that must be changed. The Bill has the support of parents with disabilities right across the board. It is a unique opportunity for the Minister to do something for which she will be remembered. Let this Dáil not end without such a Bill being passed. This is the opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister of State to take it on board and make the necessary changes.
I am pleased to speak on this Bill but I am disappointed the Government will not accept it. I compliment Deputy Fitzgerald for bringing it before the House. People have been lobbying for this Bill for a long time.
I have spoken on many occasions about people with disabilities. I ask the Government and civil servants why people with disabilities have to fight so hard for everything. Why have they to fight so hard for their rights in regard to housing, education, transport and so on? Why is there such resistance by Governments, councils and health boards to helping people with disabilities? The Bill is reasonable and would give people with disabilities a means by which their complaints would be dealt with. If enacted, it would provide for the appointment of a commissioner. There is no point in talking to health boards or the Ministers for Education and Science or Health and Children because these people are not being listened to. If the commissioner was appointed on a statutory basis he would deal with these Departments and Ministers and inform them that they are not doing what should be done, and those in the
visitors' gallery would not have to be here tonight or on the streets of every town lobbying and fighting for their rights. Why have they always to fight for their rights?
This is the first time since the foundation of the State that a Government actually has money and an opportunity to deal with many of the problems of these people. The Government is refusing to accept the Bill and that is outrageous. The Minister of State should accept the Bill and if it has faults she can introduce amendments on Committee Stage instead of saying "No, No, No", as a famous person, Maggie Thatcher, once said in regard to everything. People with disabilities have had enough of that. What they want to hear is "Yes, Yes, Yes". These people should have a statutory right to education and housing. The Minister should give them a chance and put pressure on the public institutions to provide facilities to help these people, so that they need no longer lobby politicians. A couple of months ago I saw people out in the worst weather lobbying politicians to obtain their rights. That should not happen. We are great at lecturing other countries about what is wrong with them and yet the greatest wrong is evident here, that is, the wrong being done to people with disabilities. We have an opportunity to right that wrong in the Dáil tonight by accepting this Bill. Let us begin to assist and people with disabilities. They have been left behind for too long.
We are being told now that the Government may need to borrow again this year. We know well that cut-backs will start with the sick, the weak and the people with disabilities. The Minister of State should not let it happen. Tonight she should be brave enough to tell her colleagues that she will accept this Bill and deal with the amendments on Committee Stage. Let us put this commission on a statutory basis, once and for all, and give these people the rights they deserve. They are human beings, they are Irish people and they deserve to be supported. If they were from another country, we would run to enact legislation to deal with them if they were being discriminated against. Enough is enough. It is time they were supported and we set up the statutory commission to deal with their needs.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and congratulate Deputy Fitzgerald for introducing it. It is a timely and important Bill. The Minister of State should re-examine her decision not to accept it. It is necessary to ensure that people with disabilities have rights enshrined in legislation. They have a right to have their needs assessed and to services to satisfy those needs. That is not an unreasonable request.
It is a simple measure which proposes to establish the right to assessment of need, and the establishment of a code of rights for people with disabilities. Surely nobody can refuse this basic request. It also proposes to introduce a disability commissioner with appropriate powers and the independence to ensure that those rights are vindicated, that the needs are identified and that the ways of ensuring those needs are satisfied are identified and implemented.
It is a disgrace that people with intellectual disabilities are inappropriately placed in mental hospitals. I will not make an impassioned speech but instead quote the Inspector of Mental Hospitals. Two months ago the inspector stated in his report for last year:
Once again, the Inspectorate feels compelled to mention the power of accommodating persons with intellectual disabilities in psychiatric hospitals. The situation has not improved during the past year. In addition to the specialised St. Joseph's Intellectual Disabilities service in St. Ita's Hospital, Portrane, persons with intellectual disability still remained in some psychiatric hospitals, notably in the South-Eastern Health Board. Such individuals often share wards with mentally ill persons and their clinical and accommodation needs were not adequately met. It is imperative that appropriate accommodation and resources be provided for this group of people. It is disappointing that year after year this matter has to be highlighted.
We raise this every year following his report. While some improvements have been made, obviously there is no definite commitment to deal with people with intellectual disabilities who are not psychiatrically ill. Such people have a disability; they are not ill and a hospital setting is not the place for people in those circumstances.
I want to deal also with the participation of those with disabilities in the work force The main barrier to the participation of people with disabilities in the work force which must be highlighted again, is the lack of transport in the form of buses and taxis accessible to wheelchair users. There were supposed to be a large number of taxis accessible to people with disabilities but those who received the cheaper licenses for this purpose are instead transporting other people.
People with disabilities are entitled to bus passes which are worse than useless because there are not enough buses accessible to people with disabilities. While there are some buses accessible to people with disabilities in urban areas, people with disabilities have no chance of getting to use such buses.
The Deputy should conclude.
The two areas I want to highlight are the area of intellectual disability in psychiatric hospitals and the lack of opportunities to obtain employment due to the lack of accessible public transport.
I would point out that there is less than five minutes for two speakers.
I am conscious of that. It is sad that tonight the Minister has lost an opportunity to show good will towards people with disabilities. This Government has failed to act over the past five years and tonight it has been given an ideal opportunity to do something and accept the good work of the real practitioners in the area of disability. The parents and the families are the practitioners to which any Minister must be compelled to listen and the Minister has failed to listen.
There are 300,000 people with disabilities in Ireland. They are seeking their rights and are denied them by this Government. These are people of all ages and from all walks of life, all of whom experience difficulties in their daily living. It is time this Government ended the pain of these people and their families by accepting this Bill and I congratulate Deputy Frances Fitzgerald on bringing it forward tonight.
The promises of the Minister for Education and Science in the recent past, and of his predecessor, to bring a disabilities Bill and proposals for training and education before this House, to appoint and recruit 70 additional psychologists to provide needs assessment and to establish a special needs forum in education have all failed to materialise. The Bill seeks to promote and protect the rights of people with disabilities and to secure a fair, speedy and effective resolution of complaints relating to infringement of these rights. It also provides for the appointment of a disability commissioner.
This Bill has been drafted by the people who know the needs of these people and who know where their franchise has been impinged upon, and the Government still ignores the draft Bill before us. The Bill emerges from the frustration and hollow promises of the Government over the past five years and the National Parents' and
Siblings' Alliance now calls on the Government to adopt this Bill if it is sincere in its stated concerns.
The Government has failed to honour its promises to address the needs of people with disabilities on many occasions. Worse than this, it has availed of every opportunity to thwart the legitimate efforts of concerned families to gain equal rights for their children.
The Deputy should conclude.
In the interests of fair play, I ask the Government to re-think its decision regarding this Bill on the rights of people with disabilities.
I thank Deputy Frances Fitzgerald for sharing her time with me. My brief few words are really being offered in proxy on behalf of my Down's Syndrome brother of whom I am very proud.
I support this Bill. It is a matter of great regret that more than four years into the life of this Dáil we have not seen the publication of the substantive disabilities Bill promised by the Government. We are told it will be published before Christmas and that it will set out rights of persons with a disability together with means of redress for those whose rights are denied. We should have had the opportunity to debate such a Bill long before now. Any statute setting out basic rights requires thorough examination and full debate, including consultation with those directly involved. This is hardly possible now in the time remaining to this Dáil. Therefore, I support this Bill, which has been brought forward in the absence of the promised Government measure. The immediate back ground is the case of Jamie Sinnott. In October 2000, the High Court ruled that the State was obliged to provide primary education to Jamie Sinnott, an autistic adult. The High Court awarded £225,000 to Jamie and £55,000 to his mother Catherine, plus legal costs.
The State appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, which gave its verdict on 12 July 2001. The Supreme Court upheld the State's appeal, ruling that the High Court judgment had breached the principle of separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Oireachtas by telling the Government what education service to provide. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to primary education ended at 18 years. The verdict in the Sinnott case has caused grave concern and alarm to people with disabilities and special needs and to their carers and families. The context was described well by Carol Coulter in The Irish Times who stated that there has been concern in Government and some legal circles for some time at the increasing role of the courts in intervening in what are perceived to be matters of policy. This, however, could have been avoided by the State taking a more pro-active role in ensuring the rights of citizens to special education and other services were met. The most eloquent contribution of all came from the mother of Jamie Sinnott, Catherine Sinnott, who said:
This case was about more than disability. It was about our relation to the State and we found it was not based on need. It was based on the State's willingness to spend money.
Shame.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann,
noting that the Government proposes to bring forward legislative proposals which will be wider in scope than those contained in the current Bill and
being of the view that the present Bill
(f2>a) is based on a philosophy of separation and segregation for people with disabilities; and
(f2>b) does not take full account of the policy of mainstreaming services for people with disabilities,
declines to give a second reading to the Bill.
I welcome this debate on disability legislation and the wider issues being raised by the Opposition. It is interesting that the Opposition raised many issues during the debate even though it has not dealt with them in the Bill before the House. It raised issues with which we plan to deal in more comprehensive legislation which will be published before Christmas. This Bill deals with one par ticular issue. However, there are many other issues which members of the Opposition have raised in the debate tonight, but they do not deal with them in their own Bill. The Government will deal with these issues in its Bill.
In a range of press releases, speeches and contributions to the House, various Opposition Members stated they see disability as a partisan issue which they hope will help them in next year's election. We are proud of what we have already achieved and the proposals which will be enacted before we complete our mandate. Much has been achieved, but we fully acknowledge much remains to be done. When we go before the people we will have passed more legislation – it is amazing that some members of the Opposition do not know about the Employment Equality Act, the Equal Status Act, the National Disability Authority or the Comhairle Act – expanded more programmes and provided dramatically more funding for dedicated services for people with disabilities than any previous Government. This work started in 1997 and will continue through the rest of our term. It is obvious that people with partisan interests will try to claim that we have done nothing. Any objective observer has to admit there has been significant progress.
We are opposing the Bill before the House on the basic principle that it is too narrow and would represent a return to the old policy of mainstream disability issues being dealt with in a segregated and supplemental manner. In contrast, we will bring forward a fuller Bill which will deal with a wider range of issues, including access and transport, issues mentioned by Deputies, but not included in their Bill, and will require real action by the mainstream agencies whose job must be to provide for all people, including those with a disability.
The Bill before the House is one which was produced earlier this year by the National Parents and Siblings Alliance. Like others, I wish to give it credit for its contribution. I received a copy of the Bill in July and have considered its proposals in great depth. The Bill, which is now in the name of Fine Gael, is focused on health care and related services for people with disabilities. It is important that Deputies are aware their Bill focuses on health care and related services, but they are raising other issues with which the Bill does not deal. Health issues are vital for people with disabilities, but the way they are dealt with in the Bill is not the best way to proceed. The Bill seeks to establish a series of new structures, including a disability commissioner, disability advocacy service and a director of proceedings, to implement the provisions in the Bill and investigate complaints. The Bill fails to take account of various developments in the last four years. Many of the arrangements proposed, especially the infrastructural proposals establishing new commissions and authorities, would involve reverting to the old policy of separate and supplementary provision for people with disabilities. I am sure a disability commissioner, once appointed, would engage with the issues under his or her remit with commitment, professionalism and energy, just as the National Rehabilitation Board did in the past, but that is not the point. We must build on the results of past experience. Past experience tells us that separate provision has tended to result in marginalisation.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister of State give way?
The Minister of State should be allowed to make her statement.
The legislation before us takes its form from the New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner Act, 1994. There only remains the similarity between the two pieces of legislation. Deputy Bruton referred to the international situation to which I am now referring. The nature and scope of the New Zealand Act and the Bill are quite distinct. The New Zealand legislation establishes a framework for the delivery of health services generally in that country and provides protection in relation to data protection and privacy issues for the citizens of New Zealand. The legislation deals with the entitlements of all consumers of health and related services in New Zealand, including people with disabilities whose access to health services is specifically supported in the Bill. The legislation establishes mainstream institutions to ensure equity of service delivery for everyone in New Zealand, including people with disabilities.
My goal since taking office has been to seek to place people with disabilities on an even footing with the rest of our citizens. That means avoiding approaches and actions that bear the hallmarks of separation and segregation for the disability sector. I am firmly opposed to some aspects of the Bill before the House on this account.
The underlying principle of the Government's approach has been that of equality, and its principal objective the achievement of equal participation for people with disabilities. The Government has worked to develop the infrastructure on which this objective can be based. It has put in place a framework of innovative and progressive policy formulation and an unprecedented legis-
lative programme.
As the House will be aware, the Government has already enacted several major pieces of legislation in this area – Fine Gael does not seem to have heard of them – each of which has already had a tangible impact. The Employment Equality Act, 1998, and the Equal Status Act, 2000, ensure that people with disabilities cannot be discriminated against in the workplace and in the provision of goods, facilities and services.
(Interruptions.)
They do not get to the workplace.
Allow the Minister of State to make her statement, please.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister of State give way?
The Deputy will have a right to reply.
The Equality Authority and the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations have been established as statutory bodies to promote and implement the provisions of these Acts. They operate in a mainstream environment where the organisations which support equal opportunities and redress for other citizens also support equal opportunities and redress for people with disabilities. Why should people with disabilities not be the same as other citizens?
(Interruptions.)
The Director of Equality Investigations hears equality cases involving people with disabilities, resulting in the development of an integrated body of case law which encompasses discrimination on grounds of disability.
I recently heard a number of people attempting to dismiss the significance of these pieces of legislation and the role of the Equality Authority and to suggest they will achieve nothing for people with disabilities. These comments take away from the opportunity to build a constructive and meaningful debate on the Government's forthcoming positive action legislation for people with disabilities.
A crucial feature of this infrastructure of equality and integration is the adoption of the policy of mainstreaming. Mainstreaming was a central recommendation of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. In a public service context mainstreaming means the public bodies which provide services for everyone else are the same bodies which provide services for people with disabilities. The focus of mainstreaming is maximum feasible integration, not segregation. The policy of mainstreaming services for people with disabilities is founded on the principle of equality and involves service providers in varying levels of positive action to support people with disabilities in accessing services. The National Disability Authority Act, 1999, enabled the establishment of the National Disability Authority as a statutory agency specifically tasked with advising the Government on disability policy and monitoring the standard of mainstream service provision for people with disabilities. It has set about its work well in serving people with disabilities.
The Comhairle Act, 2000, established Comhairle as a new mainstream agency. In this context I wish to bring members of Fine Gael up to date. Before we came into government people with disabilities who wanted information had to go to the NRB while other citizens went to Citizens Advice Centres. We brought both together under Comhairle, and people with disabilities now go to the same place as every other citizen, which is surely what we want. We, on this side of the House, do not want segregation, but genuine mainstreaming of people with disabilities.
The Bill before the House is concerned primarily with health issues, including assessment needs and delivery of related services. It would be great if the Fine Gael Front Bench told its back-
benchers that this is what is dealt with in the Bill and nothing else.
Will the Minister of State give way?
Policy in this area and related delivery of services is being addressed by the Department of Health and Children.
Will the Minister of State give way?
No, Deputy, there is a right of reply and it is too early in the Minister of State's speech. Deputies will have the right to reply.
Why not give her the choice?
The Department of Health and Children has already undertaken a very significant investment programme to enhance the level of support available to people with disabilities and their families. The Government was the first to provide a dedicated capital programme for these services, when my colleague, Deputy Brian Cowen, announced a three year investment programme from 1998, which was greatly extended under the national development plan. Between 1997 and the end of this year £213 million will have been provided to meet identified needs and improve existing services. While talking about millions of pounds may not register with people, it is important that they should know this has created over 1,600 new residential places, around 375 new respite places which will cater for at least 1,200 families and 2,300 new day places.
The number of persons with an intellectual disability accommodated in psychiatric hospitals was raised by a Member. It is now below 600 from a figure of 970 when the Fine Gael led Government left office. This will continue to reduce as we invest further money.
Who was talking about being partisan?
The development of support services for persons with an intellectual disability or autism will also require greater support.
The Opposition talks a lot about the waiting list for services. It is absolutely right: it is unacceptable to have such a waiting list. However, it also chooses to completely ignore the programme implemented already and the simple fact that we are the first Government to put in place a programme designed to end the waiting list. All around the country in most constituencies of Opposition Deputies new and better services are opening all the time. We are also implementing a specific programme to end the inappropriate placement of people with disabilities in psychiatric facilities and specialist support services for people requiring a more intensive level of support.
For physical and sensory disability services some £110 million has been allocated, with over 50 long-term residential and 95 respite places, 400 new day care places, an additional 100 physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy posts, home support services and significant changes in the aids and appliances budget.
In relation to services for people with intellectual, physical and sensory disabilities, emphasis has also been put on the provision of information, planning and monitoring structures at regional and national level. Once again, more must and will be done, but a constructive debate should start by acknowledging this real progress.
In terms of mental health services, significant progress has been made in recent years in the development of acute psychiatric units linked to general hospitals and the provision of community facilities such as mental health centres and community residences. The child and adolescent psychiatric services have been and continue to be enhanced as have old age psychiatry services. The Mental Health Act, 2001, will provide a modern framework within which people who have mental difficulties and need protection, either in their own interest or in the interest of others, can be cared for. The main vehicle for change will be the Mental Health Commission, to be established under the terms of the Act. Therefore, there are changes on all fronts.
It hardly needs to be said that a fundamental element in the provision of quality services for people with intellectual disabilities is health professionals delivering those services. A complex multidisciplinary approach has evolved during the years and those health professionals involved have never failed to demonstrate noteworthy drive and professionalism. The Opposition makes much of the shortage of many specialists. It of course refuses to acknowledge the failure of planning which caused this shortage and for which it shares the blame. They key thing is to get things done.
Following on from the work of a dedicated expert group revised pay scales and enhanced career structures have been put in place for the professions which give positive recognition to the key contribution to the health service made by these groups. The continued implementation of the report of the expert group is being progressed through a series of working groups representative of all those with an interest in the further development of the professions. This is helping to create conditions which can attract and retain the best people.
The Minister for Health and Children has also moved on introducing systematic workforce planning within the health service for the future. He commissioned a report on current and future supply and demand conditions in the labour market for speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. People are encountering practical difficulties. The study, a rigorous and comprehensive quantitative assessment of the demand-supply balance for skilled personnel in the therapy health care sector, was published on 25 July last. It has supplied us with the agenda for ensuring we have the number and quality of professionals required to meet the existing and unmet needs of people with disabil-
ities as well as the wider population.
The Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Education and Science are working closely to ensure the rapid provision of these additional third level places as a matter of urgency. An inter-agency working group has been established comprising representatives of those Departments and the Higher Education Authority. The Higher Education Authority has initiated a formal bidding process between third level educational institutions to respond to the training needs identified in the study. There is obviously strong interest within the education system in responding quickly to meet identified training needs in these professions. I am very confident that this process will swiftly yield the significant increase in the number of training places required.
In addition, it is hoped to encourage, in line with the recommendations of the study, flexible and imaginative approaches to increase training provision in order to facilitate the availability of fully qualified graduates at the earliest date possible. These graduates in the different therapies will make a huge difference, especially to children with disabilities.
In responding swiftly and effectively to the immediate need to fill outstanding vacancies in the health service the study emphasises the role of overseas recruitment, and health boards have travelled abroad to encourage therapists to work in this country.
Deputy Bruton raised the issue of education. My colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, has addressed the House on this on a number of occasions. This is one area where the Opposition's position is especially hard to take. In area after area it has been playing catch-up and completely ignored its ongoing refusal to take any meaningful action when it was in a position to show its real commitment. On the day the Government took office there were 100 resource teachers for children with special needs: today there are over 1,000. There were 300 special needs assistants, today there are 2,000.
Fianna Fáil has been in government for 14 of the last 16 years.
In 1997 there was no needs based system: today there is one.
The Minister of State is reducing this to a ridiculous level.
The Deputy asked questions on education and I have to answer them.
The Minister of State is wasting our time.
The Minister of State to continue without interruption.
One particular favourite of the Opposition, including Deputy Bruton, is to attack us on the issue of psychological services.
The Minister of State is playing politics.
I want to set the record straight.
The Minister of State is letting herself down.
The Minister of State to continue without interruption.
If Opposition Deputies allow me, I will outline our disabilities Bill, but if they keep interrupting, we might not get to that issue. Deputy Bruton raised questions on education even though they are not dealt with in the Opposition Bill. I remind him that the Bill before the House does not even mention education.
It mentions assessments.
Order, please.
I want to set the record straight on psychological assessment.
It mentions the compulsory right of assessment.
The Minister of State will not grant a legal right to compulsory assessment.
When we came into government we put psychological assessments on the agenda. We ran an inclusive expert review and are expanding the service every year. It is not complete, but it will be and will prove a major accomplishment of the Government. The next step is to bring together the rights of children with special needs into a comprehensive Bill. At least Deputies recognised that is forthcoming. It will include a practical framework to provide for these rights. This must include relevant structures as well as appropriate appeals mechanisms. This is being done by the Minister and will be called the Education (Children with Disabilities) Bill which will be enacted before the next general election.
The disabilities Bill proposed by the Government and under preparation in the Department will be broad based in its approach. This is a vital distinction to be drawn with the Bill before the House. Deputies tonight talked about a broad range of issues but do nothing about it in their Bill. The main focus of the Government's Bill will be on positive action measures to support access and participation by people with disabilities. This includes the issue of personal health services.
Positive action means action to remove barriers where they exist and to provide supports where they are needed. The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, in considering proposals for a disabilities Bill, identified the failure of many public service bodies to make appropriate accommodation for people with disabilities as a serious barrier to people with disabilities and one which should be removed through legislation in the form of a disabilities Bill. This was mentioned by Fine Gael backbenchers tonight but not covered in their Bill.
It is my intention, and that of my colleague the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, to include a range of measures in the disabilities Bill to ensure that all public services are made accessible to people with disabilities. This was called for by Fine Gael backbenchers but not delivered by the Front Bench. I propose basing these measures on a broad interpretation of access and the range of disabilities, which give meaning to the term as well as an innovative approach to public services and what they may include, now and in the future.
Clearly physical access to buildings and facilities will be an integral part of our approach. I believe that a meaningful disabilities Bill must include this area. The Private Members' Bill before the House tonight does not mention access to buildings. The first barrier to participation is the physical barrier, which prevents a person with mobility impairment from entering or traversing a building or a person with an audio or visual impairment from communicating with the service deliverer.
Some of the proposals under consideration in this regard would require information provided to the public to be made available in a range of alternative formats. These formats would include documents in Braille or on disk, a facility already becoming more widely available from public service bodies. The Government disabilities Bill will make the provision of such facility mandatory. The Government Bill will support e-accessibility measures and help minimise barriers to the equal participation of people with disabilities in the information society. All public service websites will be required by law to be accessible to people with disabilities.
The Bill before us tonight fails to address the area of physical access. Deputies must realise we cannot talk about a positive action disability Bill without dealing with the barrier of physical access. I ask Deputies to consider the range of services and facilities from which people with disabilities often find themselves excluded. These are issues not dealt with in the Fine Gael Bill. They have not mentioned public and national parks, heritage sites, museums or art galleries.
Does the Minister understand what rights are?
These are all part of the built environment and it is the right of people with disabilities to be able to access those buildings. The Government Bill will also include provisions to support universal design principles and their adaptation by the key personnel who influence our built environment.
The Bill before us also fails to address the issue of accessible transport. It was mentioned by the Fine Gael backbenchers, but it is not included in the Bill. Public transport is another key area where barriers to people with disabilities need to be removed. It is ironic that, if public transport was accessible to people with disabilities, they would probably have a higher ratio of usage of these services than other groups who can more easily avail of a range of transport options.
This Government is making great strides towards a more accessible public transport system and is committed under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the national development plan to continuing this progress and I am grateful to my colleagues, the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, and the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, for their work in this regard. It is important that the disabilities Bill includes substantive provisions in respect of accessible public transport and I intend to bring forward a range of appropriate measures for this purpose.
I assume Deputy Bruton can now see that the Government proposes to bring forward legislation that will be substantially wider in scope than what is in this Bill.
Is the Minister asking me a question?
No, I am answering the Deputy's earlier question. The Deputy could not see how we could be wider in scope.
I thought the Minister of State was asking a question.
As the Deputy can now see, he failed to even mention such issues as access and public transport.
If the Minister of State gives way I shall explain.
It is the policy of this Government that the operators of all land public transport services, which fall under the remit of the Department of Public Enterprise, and especially State owned enterprises, will move to create an accessible transport infrastructure. Improvements can already be seen.
There have been many changes since 1997. All DART cars are accessible and new DART cars are to have audio/visual announcements. Dublin Bus now has over 300 low floor accessible buses and will never again purchase inaccessible buses. I could not get that commitment from Deputy Bruton when he was in the relevant Department.
I was never in the relevant Department. I was Minister for Enterprise and Employment.
The Deputy's brother was Taoiseach at the time and we could not get a commitment to never again purchase inaccessible buses, but the people have it now, thanks to this Government.
That is why they come home from shopping centres by ambulance.
I am sure Deputy Fitzgerald appreciates the new accessible bus service operating in much of her constituency, but that was totally inaccessible when she left office. By the end of this year, the entire urban bus fleet in Cork, Galway, Waterford and Deputy Noonan's city of Limerick will be fully accessible. This was all completed by this Government.
Access to necessary health services is a key issue for many people with disabilities and this is addressed in the Private Members' Bill. The Government disabilities Bill will make provision for supports to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are properly assessed and that the needs identified are appropriately provided for within the health service or on an agency basis. I thank my colleague the Minister for Health and Children for his co-operation in this regard and his assistance in formulating important new provisions which will ensure that people with disabilities receive an appropriate assessment of need and the services resulting from such assessment of need to the maximum possible degree.
The provisions of the Government disabilities Bill in respect of assessment of need and related services, which make up one part of the proposed Government Bill, are reflected to a great extent in the entirety of the Private Members' Bill. What is contained in the Private Members' Bill are one part of a very much more comprehensive Bill that we will bring forward.
Use of genetic testing is another area not considered in the Fine Gael Bill but it is very important for some people with disabilities. I propose to consider in the context of the Government Bill the area of genetic testing and the commercial uses to which information obtained from this new area of technology may be put. As an issue that impacts directly on many people with disabilities, the Government Bill, and the proactive approach which will permeate its provisions, is an appropriate locus for these considerations. I am talking about insurance difficulties that people with disabilities have relating to genetic testing.
A range of other legal issues is under consideration in the context of the Bill and will cut across areas as diverse as landlord and tenant obligations, public procurement procedures and measures to promote the employment of people with disabilities.
E-Government is a real part of our lives now, and will be increasingly so in the future. The
eEurope Action Plan, adopted by the European Union in 2000, has identified "participation for all in the information society" as a key objective. The eEurope Action Plan is targeting specific measures which parallel the approach in the disabilities Bill in that they are intended to remove barriers to participation by people with disabilities and to provide support where necessary. I propose these that initiatives be included within the Government disabilities Bill.
I have already referred to the provisions in the Bill that will require public sector websites to be accessible to people with disabilities. Design for all is an important concept in the context of the built environment, information technology or any aspect of our daily lives. I want people with disabilities to be able to access all aspects of daily life equally with everybody else. I do not want them confined to the health services as outlined in the Bill before us tonight. I want people with disabilities to access all areas, buildings and transport systems and our Bill will provide for this.
Information technology design for all means any electronic based process of creating products, services and systems that are usable by people with the widest possible range of abilities in the widest circumstances. The use of technology makes a huge difference for people with disabilities. It is my aspiration that Ireland will play a leading role in the new world of information technology and that Irish people with disabilities will have the opportunity to participate in the world on an equal basis.
I stand on my record of delivering good, enforceable law to protect people with disabilities. I will be original in my thinking. The Fine Gael Members have copied the Bill that was published last July and they have confined themselves to one issue with regard to people with disabilities. We will be original in our thinking. Since this time last year, we consulted widely in terms of our disabilities Bill. When the Government Bill is brought forward, even the Members opposite will have to accept it is much more com prehensive than the one they have brought before the House tonight.
We will see.
I would accept anything that will assist people with disabilities, and the Opposition Members know that, but they must realise that some of the proposals contained in the Government's disabilities Bill are vastly more comprehensive and broad in its scope. It is well worth waiting for—
We certainly had to wait.
—because we have consulted widely. The Bill will recognise that positive action needs for people with disabilities are not confined to the health services. People with disabilities cannot get into buildings or get on buses and trains. People with disabilities want to access buildings by the front door like the rest of us. These are critical areas and I am determined to change them in our legislation. These areas are not even mentioned in the single issue Bill before the House.
I want to legislate to improve and develop services for people with disabilities and to ensure the delivery of services to individuals with a disability in an equitable manner.
The Government would have delivered its disabilities Bill at least two years ago if we did not have to deal with the two equality Bills drafted by the previous Government that were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I am making a promise to people with disabilities that we will deliver the Government disabilities Bill which I have outlined tonight, and it will be enacted. We will face the people having enacted five major disabilities Bills, delivered unequalled improvements in services and given unprecedented statutory underpinning to both the mainstream provision of services and expert services required to vindicate the rights of people with disabilities. We will stand on our record and go forward with a much more comprehensive Bill than the Bill before us tonight. We are unable to accept the Bill before us because the Bill to come is much better.
I look forward to it.
I commend the Fine Gael Party for introducing this Bill tonight and I congratulate the National Parents and Siblings Alliance for drafting it. The Labour Party will support the Bill.
I want to address the remarks made by the Minister of State at the very end of her contribution when she suggested that it was somehow the fault of the previous Government that, after four and a quarter years, her Government has failed to fulfil its promise to introduce a disabilities Bill. The then Minister, the former Deputy Mervyn Taylor—
We had to correct the mistakes after two and a half years.
It did not take four and a half years.
Deputy O'Sullivan, without interruption.
I have just started my contribution, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I expect to continue without interruption.
I explained that—
I have requested the Minister to desist from interrupting.
I did not interrupt the Minister. I listened patiently to her and it is now my turn.
The Deputy should give the facts.
The then Minister, former Deputy Mervyn Taylor, introduced two Bills, an Equal Status Bill and an Employment Equality Bill, in the previous Government. The Government was aware before it took office that there were certain constitutional matters that needed to be addressed. It was aware of that when it promised to introduce a disabilities Bill. The basic work on those two Bills was done by the then Minister, Mervyn Taylor, and his Department, and the Minister knows that.
They were unconstitutional.
Deputy O'Sullivan, I asked the Minister of State to desist from interrupting but if you address the Chair rather than the Minister, you may not provoke interruption.
The Minister of State is also aware that the second of those Bills, the Equal Status Bill, was introduced in this House more than two years ago and the Government is simply making excuses for the fact that it does not have a disabilities Bill on the table. None of the promises made so far in relation to the timing of that legislation has been kept.
That is not true.
It is on the list for introduction before Christmas. I raised this matter with the Taoiseach when we came back to the House last week. I asked him if he could give us a definite commitment that the legislation would be introduced before Christmas and he said that he hoped the legislation would be published before Christmas. I await that Bill. If the debate tonight has done nothing else it has fleshed out some of the detail of what the Government is proposing, and for that I thank the Minister of State. I won der, however, what will be contained in the Bill and why the issues in relation to transport and access to buildings could not have been dealt with in the equal status legislation.
The Deputy's party did not deal with them.
The reason given at the time – Deputy Fitzgerald can confirm this – was that it was because of constitutional restraints. When we proposed an amendment to the Constitution, it was rejected by the Government. I wonder how many more rights in relation to transport, access to buildings and access to employment will be contained in the Government's legislation in view of the fact that the constitutional provisions with regard to private property will not be rebalanced by the Government introducing a section in the Constitution which would guarantee the rights of people with disabilities to access the services and the various other aspects of living which the rest of us enjoy. We need an enabling environment for people with disabilities but I do not see it coming from this Government. I await the Government Bill with bated breath.
Will the central aspect of the Bill before the House today, namely, the right to an assessment of needs and to the services that flow from that assessment, be contained in the Government's Bill? Deputy Fitzgerald outlined the response from the Department of Finance following the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which rejected that proposal because it would cost too much and might encourage other people to want the same. That is like saying if I get soup, somebody else will want soup also.
I want to refer to a reply I received on this issue from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the political person responsible for this area, on Tuesday, 27 March 2001, in which he stated that the proposal that the needs of individuals with disabilities should be dealt with on a statutory basis has not been accepted, as is made clear in the progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities entitled Towards Equal Citizenship, and that the needs of those with disability are being met in more flexible ways. Will this assessment of need and the rights that flow therefrom be contained in the Government's Bill? The Minister did not spell that out clearly.
That letter is seven months old.
That was a response from the Minister for Finance and is perhaps an indication that we do not have a Minister for equality at the Cabinet table. I respect the Minister of State but she is not a senior Minister. The Minister for Finance is a senior Minister and if one reads the judgment of Mr. Justice Barr in the Sinnott case one can see how the Department of Finance can become an obstacle with regard to the implementation of people's constitutional rights. We need a political commitment in relation to this specific issue which is centrally dealt with in the legislation.
The Minister of State said this Bill was only about one thing. There is a specific proposal that a charter of rights should be drawn up and under that charter of rights I assume that all these other issues – I accept there are many other issues that are not specifically dealt with in this legislation – could have been dealt with under that section by amendment. I agree with the Minister of State that there are broader issues that need to be addressed but this Bill specifically includes the drawing up of a charter of rights for people with disabilities. The Minister of State needs to address that and she particularly needs to address the question of the Constitution.
The Labour Party proposes to insert a clause into the rights section of the Constitution which would recognise the rights of people with disabilities. To have a really effective disabilities Bill we need to amend the Constitution. It was interesting to hear the Taoiseach reply to questions today about whether he intended to introduce any other amendments to the Constitution. He said "No", that he only intended to introduce the abortion referendum. That is an indication of the Government's priority and other priorities, for example, with regard to the Independent Members of this House whose urgent need to be members of their local authorities as well as Members of this House was more important than this issue. That is an indication of the importance of people with disabilities in terms of the priority list of the Government.
What we are looking for is a rights-based approach which is about citizenship, access, creating an enabling environment for people with disabilities, control of one's own life and acknowledging the diversity of the various people who would be described as having a disability and society in general. Deputy Fitzgerald quoted Professor Gerry Quinn earlier. She stole one of my quotes but I will forgive her for that. I want to quote from an address by Professor Quinn, who runs the department in UCG which deals with the whole question of rights for people with disabilities. He states:
The core question here is as old as the first city states of Greece. It implicates a moral vision of the political community – of who is "in" and who is "out". It concerns our societies' attitude towards human difference – whether this difference is one of race, creed or ability. It follows that the modern human rights agenda in the context of disability (and more generally) is not so much about power and protecting people against power (although that is very important in institutional settings) – it is about admitting people to power over their own lives and conferring on them equal rights to belong and to participate. It is about re-engineering social support to serve the overriding goal of expanding the zone of freedom to include all and not to maintain people – whether in misery or in luxury – on the periphery; squatting anxiously forever on the edge.
That is a profound description of what a rights based approach is about. It is concerned with treating people as individuals and not handing down services to them but involving them in the decisions that are made about their lives. That is included in this legislation in the context of the assessment of needs, where provision is made to consult people on an ongoing basis on their needs and provision for them.
We also believe that the proposed social services inspectorate should cover situations where people are in institutional care. It is important to ensure that the highest standards prevail and that there is a body with the power to intervene on people's behalf. In this regard the legislation provides for an advocacy system for people with disabilities. In many instances this would amount to self-advocacy where people could argue for their own rights and decide what they need. In other cases the advocacy would be done on behalf of those who are not in a position to argue for themselves.
We propose the category of people with disability should be broadly based. Over the summer I read a document published by the Forum of People with Disabilities which deals with the cost of disability payment. It is well worth reading. The document points out that there are a number of workable definitions of disability in use, both internationally and in domestic legislation. It also points to the need for dialogue among all organisations. This was addressed when the Bill to which I have referred was launched in Trinity College when other organisations were invited to debate the issues and propose amendments. There is no reason a similar exercise could not be done in this House.
There is a need to address the issue of personal assistants. It has been addressed by the forum and other bodies. At present many people are dependent on CE schemes for personal assistants. The right to be able to participate fully needs to be dealt with in legislation. That would address part of the problem where approximately 70% of people with disabilities are unemployed. They do not have the same start in accessing employment as the rest of us. If we are to give meaningful rights to people with disabilities we need to ensure they are able to access employment in the same way as others by having their personal needs addressed in legislation.
There is a poverty trap for people with disabilities in terms of accessing jobs. If they get a job they lose certain entitlements, for example, medical cards, that would help them with the cost of their disability. However, if they do not get a job they must live on £85.50 per week, the current disability allowance. It is a travesty that anybody is expected to live on that in this time of afflu ence, especially when people with disability must incur extra costs, be it for aids, travel or special foods or clothing.
I support the proposal contained in the document produced by the Forum of People with Disabilities that a major study be undertaken to assess the various extra costs of disability. Many individuals approach us as public representatives with regard to these issues. A man wrote to me stating:
I have been asking for a downstairs bedroom. They passed that I need it but I cannot get the 10% cost. Also, I have to get planning permission. But where can any of us get money when we are in wheelchairs? I asked in the county hall if we stayed inside the £16,000 grant but county hall said we would still only get 90%. It is a joke. I have to crawl up my stairs and come down on my backside.
That is the experience of one individual who does not have an absolute right to a home appropriate to his needs. He has a right to 90% funding but he cannot find the remaining 10% that would bring his home up to the required standard to cater for his needs. This is a right specific to one individual but many people with disabilities have had similar experiences and these need to be addressed in a positive manner by the Government.
I support what other speakers said about educational needs and the promises made following the Sinnott judgment, which have not been fulfilled with regard to the provision of services and the so-called open chequebook which the Minister for Education and Science indicated he had. In the four and half years the Government has been in office it should have been possible to put the necessary professionals in place to ensure children with special needs in education can access the necessary resources. Last week I was told that teachers who suspect children with dyslexia are attending GPs for assessment because there are not enough educational psychologists and there is insufficient support within the education system to access the assessment needed to enable them to claim the benefits that are apparently to be made available. While a commitment to funding has been made, accessibility is the problem that schools, parents and children face.
There are many international guidelines, such as the UN standard rules and the conventions referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald both in the UN and the EU. All of these provide good definitions of what should be the rights of people with disabilities. The Labour Party believes that to be able to fully address these rights there is a need for an amendment to the Constitution. That is central to our thinking on this issue, having examined the issues raised by the Sinnott judgment and the judgments on the original Employment Equality Bill and Equal Status Bill introduced by the previous Government. It is necessary to rebalance the Constitution to insert a specific clause that will guarantee the rights of people with dis abilities to ensure they can fully participate in society.
I have not been reassured by the Minister of State on the Government's intentions. When will the Government Bill be introduced?
Before Christmas.
The Taoiseach did not give me a guarantee on that. Presumably the Minister of State is referring to publication. When will the legislation be debated and passed?
Before the general election.
It is important that the legislation is enacted to ensure that people with disabilities can access their rights. I have serious doubts about the content of the legislation, especially with regard to the basic right proposed in this Bill, which is the right to an assessment of needs and the services that flow from that. This was a central proposal by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities but it appears the Government will not fully support that right. Was I being misled? Maybe the Minister for Finance has changed his mind, but I have not been given any indication that that is the intention of the Government. It is a central proposal on the basis of which can be developed the various aspects of a person's life allowing them to participate fully in society. We need absolute guarantees on it.
Debate adjourned.