Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001

Vol. 541 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Debate resumed on 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.".

–(Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy M. Wallace).

Mr. O'Shea:

I support the Bill. The Labour Party spokesperson on Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Sullivan, stated in the debate last night that the Labour Party will support this Bill which was drafted by the National Parents and Siblings Alliance. The alliance is to be complimented on bringing forward this very worthy Bill which is underpinned by fundamental principles relating to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with a disability. The Bill seeks to secure the fair, simple and speedy resolution of complaints relating to infringements of those rights. Central to the Bill is the appointment of a disability commissioner to investigate complaints against service providers. An exciting concept in the Bill is the establishment of a disability advocacy service. The Bill also provides for a code of disability rights and for the assessment by health boards of the needs of persons with a disability in accordance with the provisions of the code of disability rights. If implemented the code would lead to considerable improvements in the rights of persons with a disability and the vindication of those rights.

The Labour Party spokesperson, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, wants to go further and guarantee the

rights of persons with a disability to full participation in society by proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The Government has failed to deliver in the provision and vindication of rights of persons with a disability. After almost four and a half years we are still awaiting the promised comprehensive disabilities Bill, while it has rejected the Bill before the House.

The National Parents and Siblings Alliance has taken an important initiative in drafting the Bill which is obviously the product of much thought, hard work and professional drafting. In its amendment to the motion for a second reading the Government dismisses the Bill on the basis that it proposes bringing forward legislative proposals which will be wider in scope than those contained in the Bill before the House. The Minister will understand why I treat this commitment with the utmost scepticism. The amendment in effect attacks the National Parents and Siblings Alliance by rejecting the Bill as being based on a philosophy of segregation and separation of people with disabilities and not taking full account of the policy of mainstreaming services for people with disabilities. Does the Minister, the Government, Fianna Fail and PD backbenchers and the Independent Deputies who support the Government really believe what is contained in the amendment, which is designed to insult and offend rather than unify in the interests of all persons with a disability? I think not. It is not too late for the Government to allow the Bill pass Second Stage tonight and it could be amended on Committee Stage. What has the Government to fear in doing this if it is really going to produce a superior Bill during its lifetime which will be passed into law before the next general election?

Mr. Broughan:

I congratulate the National Parents and Siblings Alliance on bringing forward the Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001. This Bill was born of profound frustration over decades with failures by Governments to give full recognition to people with disabilities and to provide the essential services they deem necessary. We see this from a brief glance at the national disability database compiled by Fiona Mulvaney which gives excellent information on the 26,760 people with intellectual disabilities. Four and a half years after the Government took office there are still 806 people in psychiatric hospitals in inappropriate accommodation and nearly 500 people receiving no service of any kind, which is shameful. One third of all those over 35 years with an intellectual disability will have major needs in the period up to 2006. In the Eastern Regional Health Authority area, nearly 17% of children and adults with intellectual disability have no service. Because of these figures I sat here last night in disbelief listening to the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, telling people with disabilities, who have struggled for decades, that there was no hope and that she would not accept the Bill, which she flung back in their faces and in the faces of their parents and carers. It is a disgrace.

Miss M. Wallace:

We did not say it was no good.

Mr. Broughan:

The main reason for doing this is financial. The Government is not prepared to spend money to provide a needs assessment and proper services to people with a disability. The Minister had the cheek to come to the House last night and say she would not give rights to people with disabilities.

Miss M. Wallace:

The Deputy should not misquote me.

Mr. Broughan:

How dare you do that.

Miss M. Wallace:

I object to being misquoted.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Naughten):

I ask Deputy Broughan to address his comments through the Chair.

Mr. Broughan:

The reason for not accepting the Bill is financial.

Miss M. Wallace:

The Deputy has an obligation to tell the truth. He is telling lies. We did not say there was no hope but that there was a better Bill.

Mr. Broughan:

You refused to accept the Bill.

Acting Chairman:

I ask Deputy Broughan to address his comments through the Chair.

Miss M. Wallace:

We said we had a better Bill.

Acting Chairman:

Deputy Broughan without interruption. There would be no interruptions if the Deputy addressed his comments through the Chair.

Mr. Broughan:

I ask the Minister to withdraw her comments.

Miss M. Wallace:

I will not withdraw the comments. The Deputy is telling lies.

Mr. Broughan:

I do not want to say something I might regret. You refused to accept the Bill.

Acting Chairman:

I ask Deputy Broughan to address his comments through the Chair.

Mr. Broughan:

I ask the Minister to withdraw her comments which are unparliamentary and disgraceful.

Miss M. Wallace:

We said we had a better Bill. People will see our Bill is far more comprehensive.

Mr. Broughan:

I said the Minister threw the Bill back in the faces of those with disabilities who drafted it.

Miss M. Wallace:

We said we had a better proposal. People will see we have a better Bill.

Mr. Broughan:

The Minister has refused to accept the Bill, which is shameful.

Miss M. Wallace:

Because we have a better Bill.

Mr. Broughan:

It is an excellent Bill with many ideas. As Deputy O'Shea said, it could be amended on Second Stage.

Miss M. Wallace:

It could not.

Mr. Broughan:

Do you realise the Government has only six months remaining?

Acting Chairman:

I ask the Deputy to address his comments through the Chair.

Mr. Broughan:

I ask the Minister to again withdraw her comments.

Miss M. Wallace:

It does not mention transport or buildings.

Mr. Broughan:

I ask the Minister to withdraw her comments.

Miss M. Wallace:

What comments?

Mr. Broughan:

I ask her to withdraw her comments. I just stated the facts. This Bill includes provision for a disability commissioner and a compulsory needs assessment, a major advance in terms of legislation. It also provides for a director of disability advocacy and provides for the involvement of the Circuit Court if necessary to make the Minister deliver the services. The Bill should have been accepted by the Government and the only reason it has not done so is the usual brutal financial reason.

Miss M. Wallace:

That is not true. It has nothing to do with money.

Mr. Broughan:

Why has the Government not delivered the service? Why is there no statutory needs assessment? The Government has been in office for four and a half years and has only months left. This morning we heard the spin doctors of the Minister of Health and Children, Deputy Martin, telling us rubbish about the wonderful things Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and the Fianna Fáil Independents will do for us, which they have not done over the past four and a half years. It is a shameful situation.

Miss M. Wallace:

We will do better. We care about people with disabilities.

Mr. Broughan:

I refer to carers of people with disabilities. As my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, correctly indicated the Labour Party policy, Yours by Right, points out the need for a constitutional amendment on disability rights. We also need a constitutional amendment to copperfasten the rights of carers. We must have a needs assessment for carers and abolish the disgraceful and hated means test for carer's allowance. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, has had five years to get rid of this means test with regard to these heroic people who 24 hours a day, seven days a week, look after people with severe disabilities. However, the Government has not abolished the means test. Fianna Fáil will shortly answer to the electorate who will take a very severe view of its betrayal of carers and people with disability as evidenced again tonight by the failure to adopt this modest Bill introduced by Deputy Fitzgerald and which my colleague Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked us to develop.

Miss M. Wallace:

The Bill does not mention carers either.

Mr. Broughan:

The Government had the opportunity to bring forward a carers Bill. I introduced six Bills to the House from these benches. The Government has access to many civil servants; we are on our own trying to draft legislation. The Government has had its chance. Deputy McGuinness should read the South Eastern Health Board's publication Listening to the Voice of Carers. The board is not too happy with the Deputy.

Mr. McGuinness:

I read it all the time.

Mr. Broughan:

The Disability Commissioner Bill is wonderful legislation. I commend everybody in the National Parents and Siblings Alliance for bringing it forward and I commend it to this House.

Acting Chairman:

I call Deputy John McGuinness, who is sharing time with Deputies Carey, Kirk, Browne, O'Flynn, Keaveney and the Minister, Deputy Martin. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McGuinness:

I do not want to get away from the main debate, but I believe the blow and bluster we have just witnessed from the Labour benches was intended to cloud the fact they are devoid of ideas and have done very little. The Government has had seven Bills before the House.

Mr. O'Shea:

Deputy McGuinness is a fine one to be talking about it.

Mr. McGuinness:

I am clear about the position I hold. Deputy O'Shea is not even sure of the position he holds and Deputy Broughan has not even listened to the debate.

Mr. Broughan:

I was here last night and I heard the Minister.

Mr. McGuinness:

He has come here with a smokescreen, throwing abuse and giving misinformation. He is trying to take away from the fact that the Minister and the Government are determined to deliver a Bill that goes far beyond what has been suggested in the House this evening.

Like previous speakers, I compliment the Parents and Siblings Alliance on what they have done.

Mr. O'Shea:

The Deputy should show them some respect.

Mr. McGuinness:

They have put forward their ideas as a platform for debate. The Labour Party has nothing to say and has not put forward anything constructive this evening. The Government has brought in seven Bills already and will introduce a Bill which will go far beyond the suggestion the Opposition has made. They would be far better to listen to what is going on than to be shouting misinformation across the House. They have nothing to contribute. They have been an opposition in a coma for the past four years. They have nothing positive to say and they try to drag down someone who is trying to do a fine job in this particular Department.

I welcome what the Government intends to do as outlined in the House. The Government is putting together a Bill that will go a long way to ensuring that people with disabilities will have access and participation at all levels of society. They will be given real physical access to public services and public buildings. The Government will put in place procedures to monitor the implementation of this Bill. It will ensure that the rights of those with disabilities are enshrined in the Bill and that we are able to build on the work the Minister has undertaken in the past four years.

There are specific parts of this Bill from which I have been diverted due to Deputy Broughan's remarks but I want to highlight the fact that there is a need to ensure that we have proper access for all. That can be based on transport, the development of e-government and e-commerce. Building on the achievements of this Government, it will bring forward its own disabilities Bill. This will give those who are physically or psychologically challenged a proper platform to participate and gain access to every level of society, including physical access to Government buildings and participation in employment. Access is part and parcel of what this Bill is all about. I support the direction the Government is taking and I support what the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, has been doing in her Department.

Mr. P. Carey:

I have been in this House for the past four years and many worthwhile Private Members' Bills have been presented to the House in that period. They have been well crafted and well thought through. I compliment the National Parents and Siblings Alliance for helping to craft this Bill. It is an excellent Bill in its own way, but it is very narrowly focused. What the Government proposes to do in its own disability Bill will be far more wide ranging and will do what the policy of this Government in its legislative programme has set out from the beginning.

I do not wish to be drawn on a side issue, but it is somewhat rich of Deputy Broughan to complain about this Government. I was not here, but he was part of the Rainbow Coalition that drew up two Bills that were found to be unconstitutional. It took two and a half years for this Government to rectify the mistakes made by that Government.

Ms O'Sullivan:

It only took a very small amount to rectify them.

Mr. P. Carey:

If that had not happened, the Government disability legislation would have been advanced far earlier. I started teaching about 30 years ago and there was a special class in the school. Regrettably the special class in that school, which was a very large one, was located in a small room at the back of the assembly hall away from everybody else. A number of years later I moved on to a new school and I was teaching a student who developed muscular dystrophy. His family wanted him to remain in the mainstream education system. However, the difficulties we encountered in even getting a disabled toilet, ramps from the local authority, a disabled person's extension and need assessment, with which I totally agree and which will form part of the Bill, were not available.

I am confident that the Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill will inform the legislation which the Minister and her Department will bring forward. It will promote positive action and it will result in access for people with disability to education, health, housing, transport, etc. It is regrettable that some people who are here long enough to realise it have not addressed some of the key issues in that Bill – I particularly refer to the Fine Gael Party. It needs to be argued that this Bill will achieve what they want it to achieve and will provide a better system of care, a better system of rights and a programme of positive action for the disabled.

Mr. Kirk:

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, for the focus and concentration she has brought on this area since her appointment. Clearly the Minister of State and her officials have given due consideration to the Private Members' Bill before the House. They feel there is a deficiency in the Bill and it is not sufficiently comprehensive to address the whole range of problems that people with disabilities face today.

We all accept that we need to do much more than we have been doing in providing help for people with disabilities. If the Bill has a merit it is that it will provide a focus for debate on the subject. It provides the Minister and her officials with the opportunity to examine, dissect and consider the proposals contained in it. That has been done and deficiencies have been found. The Minister will bring forward her own Bill to deal in a much more comprehensive way with the whole range of issues involved.

All public representatives have regular contact with people with disabilities – physical, intellectual, sensory, etc. They know at first hand the type of problems people experience in their daily lives. We must start from the point that people with disabilities are entitled to participate in the economic and social well being of the country. The changes that are necessary should be initiated immediately. While legislation is merely a beginning in terms of changes in society, many areas can be dealt with without legislation. One area I have in mind relates to access. As one who has spent some time in recent years in a state of disability, I can appreciate the importance of access to buildings, transport, etc. People who are confined to a wheelchair or who are not physically able to get around are clearly disadvantaged and are deprived of full participation in the social, economic and educational life of this country. I hope the Bill the Minister will bring forward will address comprehensively the deficiencies in this area.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I compliment the Minister of State on her work to date in all of the areas affecting people with disabilities. I also welcome the Opposition Bill before us tonight in that it gives us an opportunity to debate this area. No one has a monopoly on the solutions for people with disabilities.

Ms Fitzgerald:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I am sure there are some good ideas in the Bill and that the Minister will take them on board. We also have the direction from the NPSA. I have to declare my interest in the sense that I have a daughter confined to a wheelchair. She is 17 years of age and has been confined to a wheelchair for most of her life. I am very much aware of the road blocks that exist in terms of accessibility and people with disabilities getting the recognition they deserve. People with disabilities are not looking for sympathy or hand-outs. They are looking for their rights, and it is important that the Minister's Bill is broadly based and that the views of people with disabilities are taken on board.

We are all aware of the frustration suffered by people with disabilities. Discos for young people are usually held downstairs and it is practically impossible for disabled people to gain access, as it is to gain access to local government buildings. The attitude of local authorities throughout the country to providing access to their buildings is shameful. I see it in my own town of Enniscorthy with Wexford County Council, and I am sure it is the same in every county. There is a lack of understanding of people with disabilities. It is important that the Minister seriously consider the views put forward from all sides of the House tonight. She is an open-minded person and I have had many discussions with her about people with disabilities. I am sure she will take some of the suggestions on board.

On the 3% rate of employment, some Government offices are very good in this regard but others are not, so it is vitally important that that be included in the new Bill. It is all very well to have some kind of aspiration to reach that goal but to achieve it is proving very difficult. Some local authorities and Government bodies are not dealing with that issue in the appropriate way.

The other area that is dear to my heart is VRT refunds for people who want to purchase motor cars. It is practically impossible to get access to that. Unless one fits into a box, one will not qualify. There should be some compassion from the Minister for Finance in relation to that. A person who has lost an arm or a leg should be dealt with on his or her merits and it is time that whole area was changed in the interests of people who suffer disability. I know the Minister has had a committee looking at that area for quite some time but it is important that some action is taken.

Mr. O'Flynn:

It is dreadful that we might divide on this issue tonight.

Ms O'Sullivan:

We do not have to.

Mr. Broughan:

Vote with us. Show some independence.

Mr. O'Flynn:

We all recognise the work of people who care for persons with disabilities. We recognise the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities and we should move towards more independent living for people with disabilities. I am surprised the Opposition, for political expediency, would not wait until December when the complete Bill will be introduced in the House by the Minister.

Ms Fitzgerald:

We have waited four and a half years.

Mr. O'Flynn:

I am advised the new disabilities Bill—

Mr. Broughan:

We are waiting for the election. It will be a different Government.

Mr. O'Flynn:

Will the Deputy give me a chance? We have heard him shouting and bawling.

Mr. Broughan:

Yes, I am angry with the Government.

Mr. O'Flynn:

He should let me say what I have to say in the few seconds available to me. We should wait until the new Bill is presented to the House in December. It will be enacted before the next general election. I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, who spent most of her first year in office sorting out the two Bills the previous Government passed through the Oireachtas. They were sent to the President for signature but she refused to sign them. They were sent to the Council of State which referred them to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent them back here because they were unconstitutional. The Minister of State had to spend her first year in office rectifying that legislation and, in addition, enacted three other Bills in recent years, with two now coming on-stream.

I do not want the word to go out from here tonight that the Government is not committed to people with disabilities. Five Acts have been passed since 1997. That is what the Minister is trying to get across, but people will not listen. They are obviously watching the audience here tonight and the public commentators. The Minister said she will bring in a comprehensive Bill which will go even further than the Bill that is before us tonight. Nobody wants to see a Bill enacted by this House which is incomplete.

I commend my own colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, for the initiative she took on transport and accessibility. She has done a tremendous job since 1997.

Ms O. Mitchell:

She was embarrassed into it.

Mr. O'Flynn:

Members may recall that in 1997, Fine Gael was not committed to accessible transport but since 1997, 25% of all vehicles in Dublin Bus are wheelchair accessible, the DART is wheelchair accessible—

Mr. Boylan:

The Deputy should get away.

Ms O. Mitchell:

I would not boast about that.

Ms Fitzgerald:

Twelve out of 14 years.

Mr. O'Flynn:

—and in my own city of Cork, all of the new buses made available by the Minister in the past two years have low floors for wheelchair accessibility.

Cecilia Keaveney:

I thank my colleagues for giving me a brief opportunity to contribute to the debate tonight. As Deputy Browne said, no one here has a monopoly on wisdom in relation to this important topic. It is important that we have an opportunity to contribute to a debate on an important issue like disability, and it is good to keep the issue to the fore.

The issue of disability is important and must be addressed through legislation. It is more important, however, that the legislation brought into this House is definitive, comprehensive and constitutional so that those in whose interests we are all working are given the best possible chance. We cannot be narrow in our focus. We cannot segregate those with a disability in a negative fashion. We must be informed in the legislation we promote and address the wide range of issues that go beyond health and encompass, for example, access and transport. I would be happier, therefore, to await the Minister of State's Bill which has had a wide consultation process and is to be published before Christmas. I trust the Bill will be worth the wait and that people will not be pigeonholed as disabled people merely with a health problem. It has to be holistic. The days of segregation should be gone. Inclusion must be the order of the day. I have seen great success in my constituency where children in second level schools who have a range of disabilities, including autism, are being mainstreamed and are getting the support they need from this Government.

All citizens deserve adequate services and the focus of the Minister of State has been to address the deficits that have emerged over a period of time. She has been matched in her focus by other Ministers, including the Minister for Health and Children, and through the North-Western Health Board, of which I am a member. Tremendous strides have been made in the holistic approach to disability. That is not to say that everything is perfect. Far from it, but tremendous strides are being made in the lifetime of this Government. Major structural changes have occurred in terms of the delivery of disability services in the past two years. These structures must be critically assessed and, where necessary, strengthened.

Unlike the tenet of the Bill before us, and I commend all those involved in bringing it before the House tonight, it would be a poor reflection on the new organisational structures if we had to allocate additional moneys to buy carpets and desks to furnish yet another office. It should have been put where it belongs, into the services for those with disabilities. Had I longer to speak I would expand on the need for parents of children with special needs in north Inishowen for pre-school aids and after school integration. I would also elaborate on the tremendous work being undertaken in primary and secondary schools to deal with those with disabilities, including the

crèche development outside Buncrana for those with severe disabilities where an exciting project of sheltered work is being established or support services for existing sheltered work and respite homes in Carndonagh, etc. However, these are for another day and I am proud the Government is supporting such projects. A Government disability Bill must be introduced and I look forward to it being added to the five major disability Bills already enacted.

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin):

As outlined last night by my colleague, the Minster of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary

Wallace, the Government's forthcoming disability Bill will have a much broader focus and will impact on many of the areas that have prevented people with disabilities from participating on an equal basis in Irish life. Before dealing with the numbers involving my Department, mentioned last night, there needs to be honesty in terms of the debate. We know from our history that legislation and constitutional change on its own do not guarantee anything. We also know from the history of primary education that constitutional guarantees provided since 1937 were not adhered to for decades.

The provision of services is ultimately the litmus test of any Government commitment to people with disabilities. For example, it is hard to credit that up to 1998 people with autism were not recognised as a specific category in the education system, notwithstanding a major review in 1990 involving a range of parties, both statutory and non-statutory, looking at the area of education with special needs. We need to tell people that it is dishonest to pretend that legislation or constitutional action will be a panacea. I accept that may not be the intention of those on either side of the argument but we must be clear that legislation alone never guarantees a resolution to issues of this kind.

Mr. Creed:

Does the Minister accept that passing legislation establishing a legal right that is not contingent on the exigencies of the Department of Finance will benefit people with disability and that legislation that is hamstrung by the availability of financial resources—

Mr. Martin:

That is the myth that is being propounded. Through my involvement in the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children I have experience of what is involved. It took this Government to decide to prioritise people with disabilities. My predecessor, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Finance introduced a new order to give disability a priority in the budgets of 1999, 2000 and 2001. We increased the level of investment in disability and accorded it priority over other areas across the health services.

Decisions were taken in the Department of Education and Science in 1998 that resulted in over 1,000 additional classroom assistants and more resource teachers. That did not cost the earth and it could have been done in 1994, 1995 and 1996. It did not require legislation or constitutional amendment. It was done because we decided to do it.

We know of the critical issues in the Department of Health and Children in terms of the provision of services, not only for people with disabilities but for those with mental health and the elderly. They revolve around the dearth of personnel in the paramedical area. We also know we are critically short of speech and language therapists. We could pass a law tonight guaranteeing rights to everybody for everything but that will not change tomorrow the availability of or access to speech and language therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy or audiology. We must prioritise the policies—

Mr. O'Shea:

Only three extra speech and language therapists have been appointed in the last three years.

Mr. Martin:

Far more than that have been appointed. I have met the health boards and have been told that they are constrained by the lack of—

Mr. O'Shea:

That is misleading and disingenuous.

Mr. Martin:

I do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on this issue but I should be allowed make my contribution to this debate. Those groups involved in disability are aware that there are insufficient numbers of paramedics or allied health professionals to provide the services we need and want and for whom we have provided funding.

Mr. Boylan:

The Minister would soon want to address the problem.

Mr. Martin:

In the past 50 years there has only been one speech and language school in the country and successive Governments stand indicted on that. There has been a complete lack of planning on the manpower side. The same applies to physiotherapy and occupational therapy.

At last we have the wherewithal and the plan to provide enough training places to ensure there will not be shortages of these personnel. We need them to provide the services on the ground and that must be faced up to when drafting legislation. It is important that we put these issues up front with people and not try to pretend that we can create a panacea that will resolve everything overnight when we know that cannot happen. That is not to rule out a legislative approach but it is to give the debate a perspective which has been lacking in much of the public commentary.

A number of comments were made regarding the social services inspectorate and its role in terms of services for children, etc. It is the intention to broaden its role to include services for adults with disabilities. There is significant work to be done in terms of standards and protocols to underpin that.

With regard to the number of persons with an intellectual disability accommodated in psychiatric hospitals, it must be acknowledged that by late summer the numbers of such persons was below 600 compared to 970 in 1996. Significant progress has been made on this aspect and more will be made by the end of the year.

Ms Fitzgerald:

The number is still 600.

Mr. Martin:

The Rainbow Coalition Government did nothing about removing people from inappropriate settings. To be fair, my predecessor, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Finance took the first significant steps by providing the money to make it possible to relocate people. The only issue delaying matters is the need to secure designs, plans and so on.

With regard to the reliance on community enterprise schemes in terms of personal assistance, we have liaised with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with a view to mainstreaming the entire service. In the last budget we ring-fenced money to be made available to health boards to create additional personal assistants as part of their overall budgets for home support services for people with physical and sensory disabilities.

In the case of persons with an intellectual disability and those with autism, the Government on the Health side has provided approximately £213 million to meet identified needs in existing services and to support the development of new services. These developments have been based on the needs identified for this group by the national intellectual disability database which is significant development. The database has provided the wherewithal to plan properly and to get into the area of multi-annual budgeting. We know of the needs and the database has been a catalyst for the increased funding that has come on-line.

We have established a national monitoring committee to provide a forum in which the various national partners involved in the development programme for these services are updated on a regular basis and on the progress that has been made with regard to both new and enhanced service developments. The forum is kept informed of the monitoring processes used to assess the impact of these service developments on the needs that have been identified for this group. It also provides the opportunity to discuss, where appropriate, areas where the committee can be of assistance to the overall implementation of the development programme. The committee is representative of the National Parents and Siblings Alliance and the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped of Ireland together with the Department, the health boards, the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies and the Health Research Board.

In relation to people with physical and sensory disabilities, additional funding amounting to £110 million has been provided to date to enhance the levels of support available. We are in the process of developing a national physical and sensory disabilities database which will become the template for proper planning of additions to services and meeting identified needs over the next number of years. We are putting a lot of investment and work into establishing that database. It is one of the most important things that can be done in terms of physical and sensory disability in the immediate future to guarantee future provisions. In terms of mental health we have made significant strides in the provision of better services across the board, particularly with the recent enactment of the Mental Health Act, 2001.

If anyone were to ask me what was the single most important issue, I would have to say that it is manpower planning. We did not do it over the last number of decades. That is what we have to do now. It is more important than anything else, particularly in the areas to which I have referred.

Mr. Creed:

There are 4,000 administrators

versus 2,000 nurses.

Mr. Martin:

Though I am a member of it and have a partisan view, this Government has made a genuine step change in the level of funding to disability compared to anything that went before.

Mr. Broughan:

The Minister has lost the battle with Deputy McCreevy.

Ms O. Mitchell:

The Government appealed the Sinnott case.

Acting Chairman:

Deputy Crawford has 30 minutes and will share time with Deputies Kenny, Hayes, Clune, Olivia Mitchell, Healy, Gormley, Coveney and Deenihan. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Crawford:

I wish to thank Deputy Fitzgerald for bringing forward this Bill which seeks to enshrine in law the rights of those with disability. People with disabilities do not want to be pitied. They want their rights to be accepted and guaranteed by law and to secure the fair, speedy and efficient resolution of complaints relating to their rights. This Bill seeks to establish the right to an assessment of the needs and services required to fulfil their needs. The National Parents and Siblings Alliance initiated and promoted this Bill and will be disappointed that the Government has not accepted it in good faith. It could make whatever changes it deemed necessary on Committee Stage. I am sorry to have to say it, but the Government has missed a genuine opportunity. I will only believe it when I see the new Bill come in as promised because the Taoiseach has promised so many Bills that have not come on time.

The following is an example of the problems I come across daily. The mother of an eight year old child with cerebral palsy, living in my county, has to attend Temple Street Hospital and the Central Remedial Clinic. She was delighted to receive a few pounds carer's allowance last April, not because of the money, but because it provided her with a free pass for buses. Although her husband has a reasonable income they cannot afford a car of their own because of the costs of caring for their child. Imagine the lady's disbelief when, a few weeks after being granted the carer's allowance and bus pass, she was asked to submit her husband's pay slip for the week. It was showing the national wage increase and not only was her carer's allowance removed, the bus pass was too. When this lady goes to Dublin she has to pay for the bus for herself and two children and also for a taxi to the Central Remedial Clinic. On her return she gets the free service back to the bus station that is available to Dublin based families. It is serious to have a child with cerebral palsy anywhere. The problems associated with this or any other handicap creates enormous problems for the family concerned, but if you live rurally you carry another handicap and cash burden. If you live in Dublin you get the free services, but in other areas you have to pay. I believe as do others who spoke here earlier, that means testing for the carer's allowance, especially in cases like this one, should be discontinued.

We certainly need a rights culture in terms of basic rights for the disabled. There are 350,000 people with a disability. Hundreds of people are in need of the day care facilities. Thousands with physical disabilities do not benefit from activities and development. It was disturbing to read a report some months ago from the Irish Wheelchair Association on the confinement that is the daily lot of many. Many feel they are prisoners in their own homes.

I want to return to a point raised by Deputy Byrne from Wexford regarding VRT. The VRT and VAT allowance must be changed and the rights of disabled people must be recognised.

Mr. Kenny:

This Bill proposes to confer rights on the disabled and it is worthy of support. The Minister of State is going to vote it down, but before she does she should confirm that she is prepared to have her own Bill implemented in full at the earliest opportunity.

Last Friday I visited the Irish Wheelchair Association in Belmullet. There were 20 people there and the manager is from Australia. There is pride, courage and commitment there too. Advances are being made and have been made but their rights are still not recognised. A young wheelchair bound woman was travelling by train from Ballina to Heuston. Upon arrival at Heuston her friend asked for somebody to help her off, but because there was nobody in attendance by the time she found a helper the train had been backed a half mile out and into a siding. She was there for an hour and a half. These things should not happen. Signs are left outside shops on streets where they are an obstacle to those who are blind or unable to see very well. Wheelchair access to public buildings is a major bone of contention.

The people from the association told me they can apply for the essential repairs grant or the grant for housing under the health board schemes, but they will not be given anything to facilitate them wheeling the wheelchair around the outside of their houses. Every medical report says it is good for people to be outside in the fresh air and sunshine and to have the opportunity to move around. Yet the very grant scheme that allows for internal changes because of one's disability refuses to allow even a modicum of support for a decent footpath around even a portion of a house. That should be changed. It is discriminatory and it is just not good enough. The case regarding mobility allowance has been well made here. In order to qualify for that allowance one must go through a means test, an age test and a medical test and it must be decided by a medical officer that it is worthwhile and would be good for the person to get out of the house. Last year £1.5 million was paid out for the mobility allowance and £29 million was paid out to associated companies for subsidies for public transport which are 90% inaccessible to disabled people. That is serious.

On Monday I attended the national training NTDI awards in Castlebar. They were presented by the Tánaiste. There were 200 people in attendance with different disadvantages. The Tánaiste made the very good point that this is not just an incidence of disadvantage, it is an incidence of opportunity. There were people at the ceremony suffering from diabetes and its effects, from arthritis and its effects, from wheelchair confinement and spinal injuries. They all had the outstanding achievements of their courage, pride and commitment to attaining something they did not have before, thereby progressing themselves through to certificate level, to achievement and recognition. That is all they want. They have to live inside their heads. Deputy Mary Wallace is the Minister of State. She could accept this legislation and recognise their basic rights. She could build on the legislation on her own, but because of the ways of Government people do not want to accept what is good, right and proper. I support the Bill and I ask that careful note is made of the points I have made.

Mr. B. Hayes:

I congratulate Deputy Fitzgerald, Deputy Creed and others for the work they have done in bringing this Bill before the House last night and this evening. I read the Minister of State's remarks of last night and I say to her that she is missing a golden opportunity to take this issue out of the political arena once and for all. If the Minister of State accepted the Bill on Second Stage tonight, and then proceeded with her own Bill – which she states she wants published by Christmas – I would believe her. I heard her last night and read her comments afterwards and I do not think there is a chance in hell that her Bill will be before the House before Christmas.

It is disgraceful that four years into the term of her office – let us not forget that she has direct responsibility for this matter – she utters weasel words of the kind we heard last night on what is a constructive proposal to do something significant for people with disabilities.

I heard the exchanges of the Minister of State last night with Members of the Opposition. The fundamental part of this Bill that can make a difference is the automatic right to an assessment. We will make no progress for people with disabilities, particularly children with special needs, unless we have the fundamental right to an assessment. Then we will be able to deploy a programme of support for the person in question. Until that is accepted – it is at the heart of the Bill – we will make no progress.

The Minster states that the Bill will be produced before Christmas. There is no chance that Bill will be made law before the next general election and that is the reality we are facing.

Miss M. Wallace:

It is a priority.

Mr. B. Hayes:

We are entering a parliamentary session that is full to the gills of legislative initiatives and proposals. If the Minister of State were serious about this—

Miss M.Wallace:

It is a priority.

Mr. B. Hayes:

—she would accept this proposal in the House tonight, attempt to amend it, introduce her own legislation and take this issue out of the political arena. By virtue of the fact that she is voting it down, she is saying to the people of this country, who have such a genuine case, that their issue is not a priority for this Government.

Miss M. Wallace:

It is a priority.

Mr. B. Hayes:

I have four minutes. The Minister of State should not interrupt me. The Minister of State has shown she is not able to deal with the problem and I think it is a resigning issue. It is a resigning issue for her and other Members of the Cabinet who have been in power for the past four years and have done nothing to address the matter. That is why we are in the rut we are in.

We had to drag a woman and her son through the courts in order to have her rights vindicated this year. Those are the circumstances that obtain and they are not good enough.

The coming budget provides us with an opportunity to do something significant for people with disabilities. Some 75% of people with disabilities are dependent on social welfare as their only source of income. The current rate of disability allowance is £88.50. I want to see significant progress in the upcoming budget and the Social Welfare Bill to increase that sum to £110 or £115. That is the priority that we should establish in terms of our budgetary estimates. I wish the Minister of State and her Government would do something significant by accepting the Bill tonight.

Ms Clune:

I am happy to support the Bill before the House tonight. It comes about as a result of many years of campaigning by many people with disabilities, their carers, parents and siblings. It is a direct result of work by the National Parents and Siblings Alliance. We should acknowledge that.

It has been the product of those who always found themselves on the outside, always knocking on the door and begging and pleading for funding and recognition of their full rights and entitlements. It has not been easy for them, and we are all well aware of the Jamie Sinnott case in which his mother had to go to court to establish a right to education for him. Recently, another case in my constituency involved the parents of John Meehan, who went to court in July. They were attempting to establish the right to educational support for their five-year-old autistic son. They were back in court this week to get the Minister for Education and Science to acknowledge and honour the commitment he had made. That case was settled yesterday.

These cases occur all the time. Rights are not recognised. Parents of children with special needs – with intellectual disabilities in the cases I have mentioned – have to bring their cases to court. That should not be the case. This Bill sets out to enshrine in our legislation a recognition that people with disabilities have rights. It is time we grew up and recognised this.

I was disappointed by the amendment tabled by the Minister of State, whose speech I heard last night. If the Bill has shortcomings, why not deal with them on Committee Stage and bring it forward and facilitate the legislation? Let us not divide the House on such an issue tonight. What confidence can people with disabilities and their families have in a Government that will not recognise their proposals or accept one from the National Parents and Siblings Alliance?

I refer not only to those with mental disabilities, but to people with physical disabilities. I hope the Minister of State accepts some of the points made to her in this debate. Many of us who deal with grants for disabled people and try to get special aids and facilitate the educational requirements of people with disabilities find it extremely difficult. Obstacles are put in people's way in terms of trying to get reports from occupational therapists, building surveyors and engineers. It is cumbersome and difficult and involves a great deal of red tape, which people find frustrating.

Twelve months pass very quickly when trying to achieve such things. I am aware of one case in which it has taken 18 months just to install a ground floor shower. That should not be the case. These cases should be processed efficiently and the red tape should be removed.

I am sure the disabled drivers' grant has been mentioned. I have heard in this House how difficult it is to get a grant although one has to have a vehicle specially adapted or equipped. One would need to be without limbs in some cases to receive a grant, despite the fact that one is medically recognised as being disabled.

I thank Deputies Creed and Fitzgerald for bringing the Bill before the House.

Ms O. Mitchell:

I am astonished and disappointed at the confrontational and critical attitude of the Minister of State and Government speakers to this Bill, particularly in terms of what is left out of it. The Minister of State mentioned matters such as access to national parks and e-commerce. I am not sure if she understands how insulting this is to the disabled and their families. What bothers me most is that her position arose from a complete misunderstanding of what the Bill is about.

The Bill seeks to establish a code of disability rights. If we had this and a commissioner to ensure the rights are enforced, then everything else of which the Minister of State spoke would follow.

I hope she will not criticise me tonight if I concentrate specifically on one issue because I know my time is limited. It is the need for the mandatory assessment of needs for every single person, whether born with a disability or whether he or she has acquired one. Without this, even if we have the money and the best will in the world, how could the State ever know, plan for, or provide for the needs of the disabled? The reality is that the State cannot and does not at the moment.

The services the disabled need differ and will change over their lifetimes. It is certain that if we do not have early assessment and a planned programme of services to follow, based on that assessment, then their needs will certainly be greater in later life. They will certainly be costly to the State, but more importantly, it means unrealised potential, greater disability, greater deformity, poorer health, greater dependency and a much degraded quality of life. This is the tragedy of the failure of early intervention and the absence of intensive and appropriate therapies at a young age.

"Too late" is the saddest phrase in the English language, and for many of the disabled and their families who are here tonight, and the thousands who are not here and cannot be here, it is already too late. The Minister of State heard the visitor in the gallery expressing frustration and sadness tonight for this reason.

All any of us, as parents or as a society, want for our children is that they reach their potential, and we want nothing more for our disabled children. We do not look for miracles. We do not want sympathy and we certainly do not want the media who dip in and out of this issue when there is an especially heartbreaking story for them. We want our children to reach their full potential and nothing else.

Perhaps the Bill is deficient in ways, but the Minister should not ignore the fact that it establishes the priorities of the disabled and their families. She should not dismiss them and replace them with empty promises.

Mr. Healy:

I am glad to have the opportunity, however brief, to support the Bill and thank the National Parents and Siblings Alliance who put a great deal of work into the preparation of its detail. Like many Members, I appeal to the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, to accept the Bill and not to divide the House on it. She should table amendments instead if the Government believes additional matters need to be dealt with.

It is vital that people with disabilities are able to participate in society with rights equal to those of everyone else. Many of the measures outlined in the Bill would be important in that regard, such as the disability commissioner, the code of disability rights, the disability advocacy service and the fact that the service is independent. These are basic ideas on which the Minister could build if she accepts the Bill.

Other Members have indicated various matters which have come to their attention. One matter which has come to my attention is disabled persons' grants. Unfortunately, in my constituency it takes 12 months to be assessed. Once an application is made, it will be 12 months before an occupational therapist is in a position to visit that family and assess the applicant's need.

I support the Bill. Its details are important and could be built upon by the Government.

Mr. Gormley:

I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, for introducing the Bill. It covers the ground well. It is important to remember that the Government has been in office for four years. If we cast our minds back, we can recall its slogan for the previous election, which was "People Before Politics". However, the performance of the Government has always been a case of politics before people, especially in the case of people with disabilities. Certainly it has been a case of economics before people with disabilities. This Thatcherite Government with its Thatcherite attitudes has always put the weakest in society to one side. That is certainly the case when one examines its reaction to those in our community with disabilities.

Much could have been done with the surplus in the coffers for the weakest in society and in a wide range of areas but it was not done. It is interesting to note the reaction of the Department of Finance. One of the reasons the Bill has not been accepted is that it must first be accepted by that Department before anything can be done. It is the real power broker where the Government is concerned.

We all have our stories about people with disabilities. Two come to mind. One relates to taxis where it is a simple matter of getting a ramp. These are things which should not pose any difficulty and, if the Bill were in place, they would go smoothly. Another concerns a constituent of mine who has been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. All the things that person needs done will not be done for a long time because it is a complicated process. The Bill will assist those people. It is long overdue and I welcome it.

Mr. Coveney:

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I thank and congratulate Deputy Fitzgerald for bringing it before the House. It is an area on which I feel strongly. However, because of time limitations, I wish to concentrate on one area of disability, namely, autism.

Kathy Sinnott, the mother of Jamie Sinnott, has not only highlighted through High Court and Supreme Court cases the glaring inadequacy of the system for dealing with the growing problem of autism, she has also appeared before the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science to outline how much work needs to be done to put a structured system in place to treat children and babies affected by autism and other disabilities in a proper and civilised manner.

Since the disgraceful Government decision to appeal the Jamie Sinnott judgment, we have heard statements from the Minister for Education and Science expressing real commitment to putting in place an educational structure for autistic children and adults. He has made the infamous blank cheque book claim on a number of occasions, giving the parents of autistic children some hope that attitudes and resources available from Government would change for the better in the immediate future.

There is an urgency to get legislation passed by the House that contributes to instilling much needed belief that we as legislators are serious about addressing disabilities in law. There is no guarantee in the Constitution, in law or in practice that people with disabilities will get an equal opportunity to be educated, to maximise their potential and to live as close to normal lives as they possibly can. The Bill is straightforward legislation seeking to establish one substantive right, namely, the right in law to an assessment of needs and to the services that will follow from that assessment.

As has been pointed out, it is the National Parents and Siblings Alliance which has drafted this legislation and we in Fine Gael support it in an attempt to have it accepted in the House. There are many positive aspects to the legislation and I do not understand why the Government has insisted on rejecting it. I do not accept its reasons for rejection, namely, that it will bring forward more comprehensive legislation soon. It has had four years to introduce legislation in this area and has not done so. There is nothing to stop the Government adding to the legislation, should it wish to, on Second or Committee Stages to make it more comprehensive.

The principles of the Bill are good: a disability commissioner's office to ensure early assessment, a code of disability rights, the promotion of education, publicity in respect of the observance of the rights of persons with a disability, investigation of breaches of the code of rights and the taking of legal proceedings, if necessary, to pursue them. These are principles no one could or should reject. I am disappointed the Government has chosen to divide the House, especially as I believe the Minister of State has a genuine desire to address the issues of disability.

With each day that passes that we do not act to put legal structures in place to improve services to parents and their children, another child develops autism who could have been intercepted. Another family's life is turned upside down. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, was right when he said that passing legislation today will not make an immediate impact in practice tomorrow, but surely it is the right place to begin. If there is a law, the services must follow, and that is the guarantee parents want and demand.

Mr. Deenihan:

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill and I compliment Deputy Fitzgerald on bringing it forward. She has been a great and long time campaigner for the rights of the disabled down the years. As someone who worked with special children on a voluntary basis, I know full well their needs and requirements. No amount of money could be put in place to help people with disabilities and their families. The growth we experienced in the past four years provided the funding which should have been given to people with disabilities and to services for them. Before then the money was not there but it is there now and should be provided.

This Bill is an honest attempt to address the real needs of people with a disability and that is why the Minister should accept it. In the aftermath of the Sinnott case Government promises came thick and fast. The Minister promised a disabilities, education and training Bill which we have not yet seen and he promised to recruit 70 additional psychologists to assist in removing bottlenecks in needs assessment. None has been recruited to date. The Government announced the establishment of the special needs education forum to contribute to the elements which will make up the State's comprehensive response to the needs of people with disabilities. The first meeting was to be held in September but it has not happened to date. The action programme for the millennium promised much. It said that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were committed to radical change to ensure that the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities, their families, carers and advocates, were comprehensively addressed.

Our policy is based on the core principles of promoting empowerment through appropriate accessible and responsive services. Despite the commitments given by the Government, very little has been done. That point is graphically illustrated by the fact that in 1999, three years after its publication and acceptance by Government, 80% of the report's recommendations remained unfulfilled. There are major difficulties in a large number of areas at the moment. Respite care for carers and parents of disabled children is not available.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue):

I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the current debate on the measures necessary to improve further the quality of life for people with disabilities.

Mr. Connaughton:

That is codology.

Mr. O'Donoghue:

I am, however, disappointed, though I am not surprised, at the blatant opportunism displayed by the Fine Gael Party in bringing forward this inadequate measure. It is, in my view, an exercise in political opportunism of the worst type because it is motivated not by any high ideals of equity or positive action but rather an exercise in "jumping the gun" or perhaps stealing the clothes of an organisation that has already published proposals of a similar nature.

Ms Fitzgerald:

The Minister should withdraw that.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Without interruption please, the Deputies will have the right to reply.

Ms Fitzgerald:

We made it clear that we support the parents alliance. The Minister should not denigrate that.

Mr. O'Donoghue:

I wish to reiterate what my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Wallace, said here last evening. The Government is committed to legislation in this area that will underpin greater participation by people with disabilities in our society. This means giving people with disabilities the same opportunities to participate as are enjoyed by the rest of our citizens and avoiding the old philosophy of separation and segregation for the disability sector. The Government will, therefore, bring forward legislation in a new disabilities Bill that has as its hallmark the attainment of equality by our citizens who have a disability. The approach of the Government, in line with the progress already made in facilitating equality driven, positive action measures, will ensure that we have legislation that will underpin the participation, not the segregation, of people with disabilities.

I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of others in this field. Indeed, I applaud the work of the National Parents and Siblings Alliance which published its own proposals last July. I consider, however, that the approach in those proposals is inadequate in terms of the limited scope of the proposals. The Fine Gael Bill before us this evening, on the other hand, offers nothing new, nothing that can usefully be adopted. It is an exercise first and foremost in opportunism, taking some of the thought and content of the National Parents and Siblings Alliance's proposals and presenting them as their own in this Bill, as if it were some exercise in original thought, but which will not add one iota to the attainment of recognition and equality for people with disabilities.

Ms Fitzgerald:

They are cheap shots.

Mr. Boylan:

The Minister should withdraw that. He has been four years in Government and has done nothing.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Order, please.

Mr. O'Donoghue:

The traditional provision of services for people with disabilities was designed on a segregated basis which catered for different groups of people with disabilities in specialised institutions. The policy of this Government in relation to disability matters is based on the premise that disability is a social rather than a medical issue and the recognition of equality as a core principle in our approach to policy formulation.

The Bill before us tonight totally fails to recognise the progress made in relation to disability policy over the last four years. It appears to me to be an opportunistic ploy on behalf of Fine Gael to exploit an emotive issue and to make a political football out of disability.

Ms Fitzgerald:

They are just cheap shots.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Order, please.

Mr. O'Donoghue:

While Fine Gael has cynically "harrowed" the thrust of the Bill produced by the parents and sibling group, too lazy to formulate its own policies, the Government has been working hard on a comprehensive disabilities Bill and as my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Wallace, has outlined, we are well on the way to meeting our target of producing this wide ranging Bill before Christmas.

Let me remind everyone here tonight that before this Government took office there was no comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in this jurisdiction which prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities. Since then, we have enacted the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and the Equal Status Act, 2000, which together with the equality infrastructure, the Equality Authority and the Office of the Director for Equality Investigations which has been put in place to give effect to the legislation, are regarded by some commentators as the most comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in the European Union.

The whole thrust of the Government's approach to disability is based on the concept of equality for all. The measures to be covered in the Government's new disabilities Bill will be proactive in nature and will require all Departments and State agencies to participate in initiatives to advance and underpin the inclusion of people with disabilities. It seems the Fine Gael proposal to set up a disability commissioner, for example, immediately segregates people with disabilities from the wider community and does nothing to enhance equality for all in our country.

It is obvious that those across the floor have no confidence in Irish citizens with disabilities and believe the old way of treating people with disabilities differently from the rest of the population, with separate institutions, is the best way. I am glad that l belong to a Government with confidence in Irish people with disabilities and who believe it is our duty to provide the opportunities, based on equality, to allow all our fellow citizens to participate as equals in Irish society and to have the opportunity of reaching their potential.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Minister should conclude now.

Mr. O'Donoghue:

The Government's disabilities Bill will build on the work already done. It will be inclusive and farreaching and will offer far more for people with disabilities in Ireland in the long-term. It does so in a mainstream environment that fosters a policy of equality.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Minister should conclude.

Mr. O'Donoghue:

The Government has also demonstrated its commitment to social equality for people with disabilities. We have provided an unprecedented level of investment in social services. Our philosophy in relation to equality for people with disabilities is to remove barriers where they exist and to provide supports where they are needed. The Government's disabilities Bill will, of course, deal with certain matters that are the subject of the present Bill, including the assessment of needs of people with disabilities and the provision of related services.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Minister should conclude. I must call the next speaker.

Mr. Connaughton:

I understand I am sharing time with Deputies Joe Higgins, McCormack, Perry and Creed.

I am shocked by that contribution by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is shameful. I have always said that the heart of the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, was in the right place but her Government has let her down. I cannot understand why she cannot accept the main principle of this Bill. I know now that the senior Ministers in the Cabinet have a different clientele that they want to look after. That clientele is obviously not the disabled. What I heard from the Minister a few minutes ago is shameful.

Miss M. Wallace:

The Cabinet will pass a better Bill.

Mr. Connaughton:

We shall see. The Government had four years to do it and it is only now, before the general election, that it is winding up for it and then it will be shelved. This is possibly the most important debate we have had in the House in the past four years. All disabled persons, irrespective of their disability, are entitled to be treated as equal citizens. The Jamie Sinnott case will never be forgotten in any part of Ireland where the carers of the disabled meet. They know what this Government did when they had the opportunity to do better.

What must these carers think when, at the time when this economy was at its best, they only just got on a little better than previously? What will happen if there is a downturn in the economy? The principle of this Bill is so important because, irrespective of what happens, the disabled will be looked after. It will not be based on whether there is money in the Exchequer or on the ups and downs of the economy. This Bill aims to ensure that their fundamental rights are looked after.

There are huge deficits around the country in services to the disabled. In Ballinasloe there are many families who do not seem able to get the support to which they are entitled. That the carers never get a respite must be a fundamental matter that can be addressed reasonably easily, but still there are those in Ballinasloe and east Galway who never get a break. I have heard nothing from the Government side which leads me to believe things will get better. This Government will be judged on how it handles this tonight. It is interesting to see the Progressive Democrats and the independents arriving to vote. On other occasions they stood up for what they thought was right.

Miss M. Wallace:

They know what is right.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I express on my own behalf and that of the Socialist Party, our solidarity with the organisations championing the rights of the disabled who brought this Bill forward. I pledge my support for it. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the appointment of “a disability commissioner to investigate complaints against persons or bodies who provide health or disability services and to provide for the promulgation of a code of disability rights and for the assessment by health boards of the needs of persons with a disability in accordance with the provisions of that code,” and so on. How can the Government oppose that? The sad reality is that we have a Government which promised a disability Bill on numerous occasions and yet, in the dying days of this Dáil, we have yet to see it. That is a scandal.

An ominous note is struck by the Department of Finance which said – and this has probably been quoted already – that it "cannot accept recommendations which imply the underpinning by law of access to and provision of services for people with disabilities as a right. This right, if given a statutory basis, would be prohibitively expensive for the Exchequer" and so on. As we enter a period when the Government will say that belts must be tightened and the Exchequer results are not as good as was thought, we can expect people with disabilities to be neglected again. This is not acceptable. People with disabilities and their carers must be put in the front line of those whose needs must be catered for. I will vote for this Bill.

Mr. McCormack:

The electorate will judge whether the Government has done enough for people with disabilities. Is the Minister satisfied with the long waiting lists for residential care and the lack of progress in the provision of access to buildings or public transport for people with disabilities? If the Government's record is so good, as the Minister stated, why must parents take High Court cases to secure an education for their children? Education for children with disabilities should be a right and not the gift of any Government. A forum should be established to hear submissions from parents of such children. Older children receive little or no service from the Department. A Department official should be appointed with responsibility for remedial action in each case. Such a forum should have equal representation of parents and Department officials. No one is better fitted to serve than the parents who dedicate all their lives to looking after their offspring with special needs.

In August, the Government promised a Bill. I appeal to it to accept this Bill in a spirit of co-operation so that we can advance together the education and other needs of children with disabilities. According to the Constitution, we are supposed to cherish all our children equally. We have failed in that. At great sacrifice to themselves, great strides are being made by dedicated parents in providing education to their children. An autism special school was established in Galway with six pupils and has made outstanding progress. I encouraged the Government to make funds available to it and similar ones with an established track record in the education of children. I ask the Minister to support parents' efforts.

Mr. Perry:

I compliment Deputy Fitzgerald for introducing this Bill. Such a Bill should have been moved years ago. The disabled person's grant is not even available in Sligo. This Bill seeks to promote and protect the rights of people with disabilities, and to secure a fair, simple, speedy, efficient resolution to complaints of infringe ments of those rights. It provides for the appointment of a disability commissioner to prepare a code of disability rights and to investigate complaints against persons or bodies in breach of the code. This ought to be in place along with an assessment of needs of all persons with disability. It seeks to remove barriers to equality. Given the good economy, it is disappointing that in the dying days of the Government, the Minister is only now contemplating a Bill. The most vulnerable in our society are left to the last. As Deputy McCormack said, the electorate will judge the Government on its inaction.

Mr. Creed:

I thank Deputy Fitzgerald and all of my Oireachtas colleagues for their contributions, especially in the Labour and Green Parties and the Independents. With the exception of the Ministers, Deputies Martin, O'Donoghue and Deputy Wallace, the Minister of State, people's hearts are in the right place. The challenge for us is to break free of the shackles of the Whips system to give effect to what we believe is the right thing to do. If this debate had occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Jamie Sinnott case, not even the Ministers would have delivered their scripts in the tone they did which is regrettable.

Miss M. Wallace:

I hope the Deputy will vote for the Government on some occasions. He ought not to speak of us like that.

Mr. Creed:

I have little time. I hope the Deputy will allow me to use it. We are familiar with the term that the poor must wait and that the poor we will always have with us.

Miss M. Wallace:

I hope the Deputy will vote with the Government.

Mrs. Owen:

The Members opposite did not have to respond the way they did.

Mr. Creed:

Deputy Wallace had her opportunity and she blew it, with all due respect. I would like to make mine without interruption.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputies, please allow Deputy Creed without interruption.

Mr. Creed:

We are familiar with the term that the poor must always wait but in the ethos of this Government, they must wait and the disabled must wait even longer. The regrettable reality is that we did not claim that this Bill is the panacea to all the ills confronting disabled people, but we believe that it is substantially different to the legislation to which Deputy Wallace referred. She stated that "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 was a good start but then she referred to various equality Bills. The real question is what benefit is this legislation to Jamie Sinnott and all the many thousands who cannot access services. This Bill is substantially different and more important because it breaks new ground by establishing a legal right, not to the Rolls Royce service which the Department of Finance, to which Deputies O'Donoghue and Martin kow-tow, fears will break the bank, but because it guarantees them a right to a service that puts them on an equal footing and grants mainstream status, as Deputy Wallace said in her speech.

Deputy Martin, the Minister for Health and Children, introduced an education Bill following the Sinnott judgment which made resources available contingent on Exchequer generosity. This Bill seeks to break new ground. Deputy O'Donoghue, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his mean spirited address referred to this Bill being inadequate but at the same time praised the Bill published by the National Parents and Siblings Alliance. Not only was his contribution mean spirited but it was out of touch because it is the same Bill. We are sponsoring the Bill given to us by the alliance. It is their publication last July which was good. Fine Gael are sponsoring it in the House.

Miss M. Wallace:

The Deputy and his party had nothing to add to that.

Mr. Creed:

Why can the Government not go with it? It is breaking new ground.

Miss M. Wallace:

Have the Deputy and his party no ideas?

Mr. Creed:

This is not the perfect Bill. The current position is that parents of children with a disability are prisoners of the system that ultimately might give them an assessment, but equally says at the end of that assessment that "we actually have the service that you require also". As a result, children are inadequately placed.

What we need is a legal right to an assessment of needs and individual plans for individual citizens that gives them a right to access a service commensurate with that assessment of needs. That is why this Bill is significantly different and breaks new ground. It will not break the bank. It is in keeping with the views expressed by the overwhelming majority of Members if one cuts through the adversarial nature of politics in the House. It is what everybody bar the three Ministers who spoke really wants to give effect to. It is what the public want to give effect to and it is regrettable that the parents and families of people with disability go through such difficulty on a daily basis.

In the aftermath of the Sinnott judgment, this story had all the media attention but it was quickly dropped and went into a lull. We need constant attention on this issue. We will lose tonight's battle because of the party Whip system but we will not walk away from it until we win the war. The war is to establish a legal right to an assessment of needs and a legal right to access a service commensurate with those needs.

Amendment put.

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.

Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael. Wright, G. V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.

Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.

Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.

Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.

Question declared carried.