Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 2004

Vol. 176 No. 7

Disabilities Bill: Motion.

I move:

"That Seanad Éireann, condemning the continuing delay in the publication of the Disabilities Bill and noting the clear indication from the Government that this legislation will not constitute a rights-based approach, calls for the urgent introduction into the Oireachtas of a rights-based Disabilities Bill incorporating an objective assessment of the needs of disabled persons."

I welcome to the House the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, to debate this matter which we believe to be important and urgent. In recent days, I examined the record of both Houses of the Oireachtas and noted that the issue has come up for debate on several occasions, which is indicative of the level of concern among Senators and Deputies about the failure of this Administration to bring forward the promised rights-based disabilities Bill. I am surprised that we now find ourselves, almost in May 2004, with no solid legislation having come forward, considering the number of occasions on which it has been promised and the great expectation which was created around the publication of that Bill.

Having been met with a lack of action, that great expectation has created a deep sense of disappointment among groups working with people with disabilities and people with disabilities themselves because they rightly feel they are being ignored and that their standing in the community is not on an equal par to that of others. They feel that their demands and rights to be treated as equal citizens are not being heard by the Government and are not being seen in solid terms.

The importance of a rights-based approach to this whole issue cannot be underestimated. My former colleague, the former Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor, first put the issue solidly on the agenda during his term as a very reforming Minister. Unfortunately, since this Government came into office, that same approach has not been evident. Former Minister Taylor took the view, as did the party, supported by Government colleagues at the time, that it was overdue for us to recognise the need for a rights-based approach to dealing with disabilities. For too long the issue was treated as one of charity, particularly when it came to funding. In other words, people with disabilities could wait, particularly in a time of economic difficulty. However, since the early 1990s, we have lived in a time of economic plenty and despite a good solid ten years of decent prosperity and considerable wealth in this country, we have not seen it spread around.

That is total and utter balderdash.

Senator O'Meara without interruption.

I cannot allow her away with making statements like that. It is typical of the Labour Party.

Senator O'Meara without interruption.

If the Minister of State would like to listen, he might hear——

A heap of untruths and falsehoods.

That is not to say that this and previous Administrations have not spent money in this area — I acknowledge that has happened — but not enough has been spent. For example, last week and this week I have been dealing with a situation after a parent telephoned me to say she had been told by a residential school in my area, which her 21 year old son was attending, that he would have to leave and go home because his needs were such that the school could not afford to keep him. He needed a level of staffing and care which was to cost approximately €1.2 million per annum. The school said it could not afford to pay that unless the health board could fund it. The health board has come up with short-term funding but the mother finds herself asking if funding will be available beyond a three month period.

Having researched the matter, I am told a unit is required in the mid-west region for people with this person's particular needs, which are very high maintenance and demanding. Without that, the mother will be faced with telephoning people like me when the school tells her, as it must, that it cannot afford to keep her son or meet his needs. That is what I mean when I say that not enough is being spent. If in 2004, in a time of economic plenty, a parent is being told by a residential school that it cannot care for someone, we are failing in our duty. This is only one example of the many which I am sure I and every other Senator could give.

Everybody knows what a wonderful occasion and positive experience it was to host the Special Olympics last year. A very positive spin off was that those with disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, were given the recognition they so deserve. They were very visible in the community and their very special contribution was recognised. However, this did not translate into solid measures. It would have been entirely appropriate in 2003 for the Government to have brought forward legislation that would give recognition to the equal role to be played by people with disabilities. I look forward to the Minister's response on the reason for this delay. We simply do not know if there is a problem.

There is a great sense of disappointment and frustration at this delay. There is a perception that people with disabilities are not being treated equally and this is backed up by the statistics. One in ten or the 37 million people in the European Union, before the accession of the new member states on 1 May, has a disability. People with disabilities are workers, consumers, taxpayers, students, neighbours, friends and family members, but they are not treated equally.

A survey carried out throughout the European Union last year revealed a serious lack of understanding of the meaning of disability and also of the number of people affected. Most people would not realise that one in ten has a disability as the general perception is that the number of people with disabilities is quite low.

In order to be treated equally, people with disabilities need to have the power to speak for themselves and should not be viewed as objects of charity. They should not be excluded from society through poor education. The employment of people with disabilities is a major issue because without employment people cannot aspire to a better quality of life and face a life of dependency and, in many cases, poverty.

We have an opportunity to change that but we are lacking the commitment and will to do so. There are many fine schemes that support people with disabilities in sheltered employment and in the workforce. However, a young educated woman who is wheelchair bound outlined to me the level of prejudice and difficulty as well as the constant frustration she experienced in demanding her right to be treated equally. We pay lip service to it, but this well educated young woman in her twenties is experiencing severe difficulties in getting employment and the only reason she could see was that she had a physical disability. Of course, that is not new. As a community we must be vigilant in looking at our attitudes towards people with disabilities. Whereas the whole community rowed in behind the Special Olympics, we must be vigilant in maintaining a level of public awareness, which I think has slipped considerably since 2003. If people are not visible in the community, we can forget about them.

The families of those with disabilities struggle to get what is needed for the disabled person to play his or her role as a full citizen in society. The disabled have to spend time dealing with many institutions at different levels, leaving very little time to generate awareness of their needs. It takes time to ensure the needs of the disabled are met.

This issue was raised before in both Houses, but we feel it is time to raise it again. It is very important that the Government responds to those affected by disability and outlines where its priorities lie on this issue.

I second and am delighted to support the Labour Party motion. The delivery of rights-based disability legislation has been debated time and again in both Houses. On numerous occasions we have seen people outside the gates coming to demand action. The Government Chief Whip listed the Government's legislative programme on 29 September 2003 clearly outlining the Bills expected to be published. No. 17 on that list indicated that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform expected to publish a disability Bill to provide measures for the equal participation of people with disabilities. Prior to that, on 28 May 2003, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, stated he was meeting his officials to finalise the timeframe for the introduction of the legislation, but he said he was 99% certain the Bill would be enacted by this summer. He stated:

The Government is determined to bring forward new legislation to replace the last Disability Bill. Hopefully that will be before the summer and I can say that I am 99% certain of that.

Mr. Michael Ringrose, chief executive of PWDI, who was present at the time, stated he was heartened by the idea that the Bill would be enacted before the summer but he hoped that, unlike the Irish summer, the Bill actually materialised.

What has gone on in the past ten years since the establishment of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities has been nothing other than a litany of fudge. That can be identified in the two examples I have given but also in the Taoiseach's remarks since 2003 when he clearly indicated that he would ask for information, meet groups and engage in further consultation; he will do everything and anything but deliver the Bill.

Thankfully the previous Bill published in 2001 was withdrawn because of the outrage of the many groups at the coalface whose members realised what was involved. The groups themselves have become suspicious as to the contents of the Bill after all the delay, the inadequacy and inability of the Government to deliver meaningful legislation to provide a rights-based entitlement to those in need. Sadly, such an entitlement is not yet available and, despite the Minister of State's remarks last May that it was 99% sure to be published, it is unlikely to be published soon.

Disabled people, as well as their parents, carers and advocates, must continually rely on the public's goodwill. They have had to persuade and coerce the Government into realising that they are citizens of the State who should enjoy the same rights as those who are not disabled. It is a disgrace that after rounds of consultation and submissions, the Government is still happy to fudge its commitment to disabled people by grounding the debate in resource issues. It is the only excuse mechanism left to the Government.

Ministers talk about their duty to provide resources in a fair and equitable way and I have no doubt the Minister of State will mention that in his reply. However, the disabled community has never experienced this notion of fairness. Does "fair and equitable" mean the disabled child has a substandard education because of inadequate support services? Does it mean that disabled persons must live without a personal assistant who could otherwise facilitate them to become active participants in the labour force? Does it mean the current and future physical infrastructure in the State, including trains, airlines and buses, can be developed with no thought for the disabled? Does it mean parents of children with intellectual disability must pray that their offspring will die before they do, because they fear the kind of State institution that will provide for their children afterwards? Does "fair and equitable" mean that able-bodied people can grow up, be educated, buy a house and live a normal life, while those with disability cannot do so? It is time for the Government to state whether it is committed to the disabled because most people are now in doubt about it and they have good reason to be.

Last year was a proud one for Ireland when it played host to the Special Olympics. Some 7,000 very special people participated in those games, the biggest sporting event in the world. At the time, we were assured that legislation would be introduced to give rights to such people. Only four weeks ago, in the Mansion House, the people involved in the commission came together under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Flood, to plead for action by the Government. The members of that commission, who had given so much time and endeavour to the Special Olympics, indicated their frustration at the delay in publishing the disabilities Bill. Mr. Justice Flood feared, as we all do, that there is some reason it cannot be published now. It is believed the Bill is not rights-based and will be hampered by inadequate resources, so the timescale for its implementation cannot be met. It is feared also that the Bill's contents will be woolly, as usual, so that the Government can escape its legislative responsibilities. That is not fair on those who are suffering.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"—endorses the Government's intention to give statutory effect in a Disability Bill to a range of important policies as they relate to people with disabilities, to establish systems for assessment of need and service provision and to specify infrastructure for policy delivery,

—commends the provision of redress mechanisms in the Bill to support individual service entitlements,

—recognises the value of the Government's broad-ranging consultation process with the disability sector, and

—welcomes the framework being put in place by the Government to underpin the equal participation by people with disabilities in Irish society, including the proposed Disability Bill; the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003, which is currently at Report Stage in the Dáil; the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill; which is being prepared in the Department of Social and Family Affairs in relation to the provision of advocacy services; sectoral plans for key public services; and equality legislation to be updated by the Equality Bill 2004 which is currently at Second Stage in the Dáil.".

I welcome the Minister of State. I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this important issue. In 1997, I made my maiden speech to the House on the same subject. As someone who has worked in the sector for approximately 20 years, I acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Governments have made to disabled persons since 1997, by making resources available and by developing policies to help those with disabilities.

To put the matter in its historical context, the 5th century Brehon Laws identified the following categories as exempt from punishment and exploitation: idiots, dotards, persons without sense and fools. The clans to which such persons belonged were charged with responsibility for ensuring their welfare. Over 1,000 years later in England, Daniel Defoe decided to establish a house for "these fools" as he called them. He proposed the house would be resourced by a tax on authors. For the very first time, this idea promoted institutions catering for disability. Unfortunately, however, what on the face of it appeared to be a kind gesture by Mr. Defoe turned out to be the opposite because he was doing it to protect the public from such people.

To some extent, we are still struggling to this day with elements of those attitudes and perceptions, particularly within the wider ambit of society at large. There is still a stigma attached to being disabled, although thankfully the situation is improving dramatically. Where the disabled are not stigmatised, however, they are certainly patronised. We can imagine how difficult it must be for wheelchair-bound people to deal with patronising attitudes. In some respects, it would not be an exaggeration to say that myths and folk memories are still fostered within communities which look at disabled people in a peculiar way, asking whether they are human, a threat to individuals or society, or a curse on their families.

Thankfully, however, over the past 30 years there has been a revolution in the provision of services for people with disabilities. This turnaround has been spearheaded by a professional workforce catering for the disabled, but there are both positive and negative aspects to it. This is because while the various levels of service requirement are being recognised and attended to, little is being done to change public attitudes to people with disabilities. If anything, the expertise of the professionals has served to promote an opinion that since they are the experts and know what they are doing, ordinary people do not know how to deal with disability.

I read a newspaper article nine months ago which described a couple's experience of having a handicapped child. The couple said the doctor told them: "Take her home. She won't be up to much but she won't cause you any trouble either." If that was the perspective of a professional, then it is no wonder it has taken us so long to approach mainstreaming people with disabilities into society. There is a silly old saying that a couple are blessed with a handicapped child, but people who say that never spent a day with a handicapped child or had to mind a handicapped child 24 hours a day. While it is a gift to have a child of any kind, minding a handicapped child is a 24 hour job and people should not talk about this unless they have experienced it.

The fight back in this area came with the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which dealt comprehensively with issues affecting those with disabilities. It became the cornerstone of the Government's policy and any fair-minded person looking at what the Progressive Democrats-Fianna Fáil Government has done since 1997 would have to agree that it has put major resources into this area and there have been major benefits for those with disabilities. The Government has significantly advanced the equality agenda and there have been improvements in many areas. We need only look at the legislation which has been introduced — the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003, which is on Report Stage in the Dáil, the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill, the Equality Bill, the Employment Equality Bill, which outlawed discrimination at work, and the Equal Status Bill, which outlined discrimination in the provision of goods, services and accommodation. There are also 3% employment quotas and we were told recently that those are now being met. The Labour Party is excoriating us for what we have not done, but if it is being reasonable, fair and objective, it would have to say we have done a great deal in that time.

Senator O'Meara outlined how one organisation fared in the last seven years, but I can give an example of a school I was dealing with recently. In 1996 it had 113 pupils, 12 teachers, two special needs assistants and no bus escort. Today it has 15 fewer pupils, seven extra teachers, 15 more special needs assistants and 15 bus escorts. That sums up how people with disabilities have been treated by the Government and how they will continue to be treated.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this issue, which is close to everyone's heart. A few minutes ago I was in my office and I heard the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Ahern, say: "Typical Labour Party". If that means standing up for the rights of people with disabilities and achieving what the Labour Party has achieved in Government, then I am glad that it is typical Labour Party stuff, as the Minister of State put it.

There have been fundamental changes in Ireland in many areas of life and governance. However, we could make much more progress in this area. Much work has been done by groups representing people with intellectual and physical disabilities and it is high time the Government published a proper, rights-based Bill which will satisfy those groups as well as people with disabilities. All too often we forget that those with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else and this is a matter of removing barriers which prevent people with disabilities from performing in society as they should. Attitudes have also changed in recent times but many frameworks and necessary measures have not been put in place for effective change.

Last year we spoke about the Special Olympics, which was a wonderful occasion of inclusion for people with disabilities. Many countries were able to participate in a showcase for inclusion and recognition of people's ability, rather than disability. Nobody was partisan enough to politicise that occasion but it raised an important point which this motion hopes to achieve — the introduction of proper, rights-based, effective legislation as soon as possible. We are now less than two months away from the local elections and it is not right to keep putting this issue on the long finger, which has been the case since the mid-1990s. It is eight or nine years since the strategy for equality was published and the Government accepted at that stage that rights-based legislation was needed. Powerful media organs were watching us last year during the Special Olympics, which was a wonderful opportunity to display what people are capable of doing and to recognise their participation as equals. The Government deservedly received credit for that wonderful occasion, but we can now push this further.

There are over 3,500 people with an intellectual disability on waiting lists for services, which is unacceptable. Many of these people do not have a voice of their own with which to express their unhappiness with the lack of delivery of services in many areas. There is also a lack of statutory responsibility which should be placed on service providers to deliver services for people in this area. Over 1,600 people are waiting on residential places, which means somewhere to live. That is a shocking indictment of any country.

There are problems with the health service in general but those problems do not exist to the same extent as for those with disabilities. For example, some 457 people are at home without any services and most are dependent on elderly parents. On a related matter, we have called here for the abolition of the means test for carers many times. That test is another issue which needs to be looked at in adopting a positive and proactive approach. The State could do this for those people, many of whom are elderly people providing wonderful care to their sons or daughters and saving the State a huge amount of money and responsibility. Many of them must work continuously and, by and large, they do not have a trade union to represent them, nor do they receive holiday entitlements, parental leave or any of the other benefits enjoyed by ordinary workers.

Over 450 people with intellectual disabilities live in deplorable conditions in psychiatric hospitals, according to the Department of Health and Children last year. That spells out how much we have to do. The key principles of any Bill should achieve two things: it should put a responsibility on service providers to deliver a service in this area and there should also be an implementation element. The Bill must be enforceable because there is no point debating legislation here if it is not implemented appropriately once it is passed. We are talking about equality for everybody, which is very important.

Last year there was a debate in the European Parliament on a United Nations measure. InJune 2003, the UN Convention on Disabilitiesset up an ad hoc committee to draft a text for right-based legislation. Many international communities, not only in Europe but further afield, participated in the debate. Efforts were made by some members of the European Parliament to introduce an EU directive banning discrimination against people with disabilities. As late as last night, the House debated two EU directives, the nitrates directive and the other on the associated issue of agriculture. This type of issue is uppermost in the hearts and minds of many thousands of people. This matter should be one of the main priorities of national governments and the main priority of member states. It is appropriate that Ireland holds the EU Presidency at this time. Ireland can lead by example by looking at this area.

The commission to which Senator Kett referred, which was chaired by Mr. Justice Feargus Flood, was set up in 1993 and produced a report. One of the main findings of that report, that a disabilities Bill should be introduced, has yet to be implemented. I do not know the reason for the eight year delay. I understand there are difficulties in introducing legislation but it was the most important recommendation of that report. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to take back to Government the urgency associated with this issue.

The Government is committed to the preparation of a disability Bill that will facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in Irish society. The Government's intention to bring forward the Bill was signalled in An Agreed Programme for Government. The programme states:

The Government will complete consultations on the Disability Bill and will bring the amended Bill through the Oireachtas and include provisions for rights of assessment, appeals, provision and enforcement.

The legislation will give statutory effect to a range of important policies as they relate to people with disabilities and will establish systems for assessment of need and service provision as well as specifying the infrastructure for their delivery.

The Government has progressively advanced the disability equality agenda over the past number of years, building on the conclusions of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in 1996. To date there have been three important phases in the process, the first being the enactment of anti-discrimination legislation and the second being the mainstreaming of service delivery for people with disabilities. The third phase in the process centres on strengthening service delivery and involves the preparation of a broad ranging positive action framework, one element of which is the disability Bill.

To deal with equal opportunities first, Ireland has had strong multi-ground employment equality and equal status legislation since 1998 and 2000 respectively. The legislation is among the most advanced in Europe and predates recent EU directives which can be expected to enhance equality legislation in many European countries. Under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2000, people who are discriminated against on the grounds of disability, or on any one of eight other grounds, have a statutory right of redress. The equality infrastructure, which supports this right, comprises two elements: the Equality Authority, whose role is to work towards the achievement of equality of opportunities and the elimination of discrimination, and the Equality Tribunal, which makes determinations in relation to complaints of discrimination and offers mediation in suitable cases.

The second phase in the process took place in 2000, with the launch by An Taoiseach of a mainstreaming approach to disability service delivery. Mainstreaming, in this context, means the delivery of services for people with disabilities by the public bodies that provide the service for everybody else. The approach replaced a service delivery model that bore the hallmarks of separation and segregation with one that seeks to focus on the integration of services for people with disabilities with the generality of public service provision. The Taoiseach said in 2000:

The providers of basic State services will, from today on, have the concerns of people with disabilities as part of their core work. Disability is no longer an area to be dealt with by someone else. I want today to be seen as the moment when the State played its part in ending the old medical model of disability. Today is a red letter day in the struggle to bring the hopes and aspirations of people with disabilities away from the sidelines and into the mainstream.

Since mainstreaming, for example, employment and vocational training policies for people with disabilities are now formulated as part of general labour market policy, underlining a move to an inclusive economic and social view of disability. FÁS now has policy responsibility for the employment and vocational training of people with disabilities. This is backed up with the availability of income supports to facilitate the transition to employment for people with disabilities. Other mainstream service providers centrally involved in the new arrangements for provision of services to people with disabilities are the health boards, Comhairle and the National Educational Psychological Service. Many of the services they provide were previously delivered on a segregated basis by the former National Rehabilitation Board. The National Disability Authority was established at the same time in 2000 to act as a focal point for disability mainstreaming and to help with the co-ordination and development of disability policy.

The Disability Bill is part of the current phase of development undertaken by Government to facilitate participation by persons with disabilities in Irish society. In an effort to give the disability sector every opportunity to influence policy in the Bill, the Government has established and maintained consultation with it during the preparation of the legislative proposals. In April 2002, an expert consultation team was appointed involving experts in legal, economic and social affairs to oversee the consultation process. The team met with and received the views of stakeholders including the disability legislation consultation group, the social partners, the community and voluntary sector and relevant Departments before completing its task in February 2003.

The disability legislation consultation group is a group representative of people with disabilities, their families, carers and service providers which was brought together by the National Disability Authority to facilitate dialogue at national level, both within the sector and with Government. The disability legislation consultation group presented the document, Equal Citizens — Proposals for Core Elements of Disability Legislation, in February 2003.

Last year, the disability legislation consultation group had meetings with a number of members of the Government, including the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers of State, Deputy O'Dea and Deputy O'Malley. The discussions at these meetings covered such matters as assessment of need; standards; service provision; the need to build capacity in key sectors of the public service so as to allow provision of disability accessible services in a cost effective way; and workable redress mechanisms. That the disability sector has consistent access to consultation at the highest levels is an indication of the importance the Government attaches to bringing forward a comprehensive measure to meet the real needs of people with disabilities.

This year, there have been meetings between officials and the disability legislation consultation group at which it was given an outline of the proposals for legislation. Its views about these proposals were discussed and noted for consideration by the Cabinet Sub-committee on Social Inclusion. At present, contact is continuing between the group and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea.

The question of rights-based legislation is one that has been raised repeatedly in connection with the Bill. Some argue that the legislation must provide access to the courts for the adjudication of individual cases. It has also been forcefully presented that both the needs assessment process and service provision should be free of resource constraints. At one of the meetings with the disability legislation consultation group last year, the Taoiseach commented that a more productive dialogue on rights is possible if there is a recognition of the complexity of the issues and of the relationship between rights and standards.

We need to be aware that a focus on legal rights may not guarantee in practice the results that are often claimed by proponents. It is worth pointing out that a litigation driven approach to services and resource allocation is not a feature of statute based assessment and service delivery systems in other common law countries. The challenge is to put effective policies, institutions and systems in place. It is interesting to look at some comparative research which was published by the Economic and Social Research Institute last year. The research compared the situation in some other countries which, like Ireland, have a legal structure based on common law, namely, the US, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Sweden. The research indicated that, even where a person has a right to assessment of his needs, this does not automatically lead to the provision of all the services involved or having the provision of those services enforced by the courts. We need to bear in mind that the countries surveyed are regarded as among the most advanced in the world both economically and, in some cases, in terms of social policy.

It appears from the ESRI research that each country has pursued a path best suited to its own legal, political and administrative structures. There is no reason Ireland cannot do the same and this is precisely what the Disability Bill and the other measures in the framework are being designed to do.

The disability Bill will give statutory effect to a range of important policies as they relate to people with disabilities, establish systems for assessment of need and service provision and specify infrastructure for policy delivery and redress. The Government is convinced of the importance of effective redress mechanisms if services committed in the Bill are not delivered. Statute-based complaints and appeals structures will be provided. The Government recognises the benefits for people with disabilities of an independent assessment of need. The Bill will legislate for such an assessment and allow for redress. Service delivery decisions of service providers will be subject to appeal and enforcement procedures. However, as is the case with all public services and in other jurisdictions, services will be constrained by available resources. The Bill will address access issues, especially regarding public buildings and services and information for people with disabilities. In addition, sectoral plans will set out a range of actions to make physical infrastructure accessible as well as the enhancement of disability-specific health, social welfare and employment services.

The Bill provides an opportunity to give statutory backing to positive action measures for the recruitment and employment of persons with disabilities in the public service. Such provision will build on existing employment targets and foster concerted action across the public sector.

A minority of people with disabilities have certain genetic conditions and in recent years concerns have been expressed that the use of genetic testing data for insurance, mortgage and employment purposes may reinforce a cycle of poverty and exclusion. Provisions aimed at enabling people with disabilities to access reasonable insurance cover, for the purpose of house purchase, for instance, something the rest of us take for granted, would be helpful in this area.

The Disability Bill 2001 provided for the establishment of a centre of excellence in universal design to promote and support the adoption of principles in universal design, particularly by the key players who design, plan and construct our environment. Such a centre would respond both to existing Government commitments and to best practice under the e-Europe action plan. With a broad policy base on the lines just described, the disability Bill envisaged by Government could become a powerful catalyst for change for people with disabilities. Other elements of the framework include the Education of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003 which is awaiting Report Stage in the Dáil; the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill, which will establish advocacy services for people with disabilities and will be published by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs at the same time as the Disability Bill; sectoral plans for key public services; and equality legislation.

I will outline the other elements of the framework. The Education of Persons with Disabilities Bill makes detailed provision for the education of children with special educational needs. The Bill is designed to address children's rights under Article 42 of the Constitution which already entitles each child to free primary education. The Bill establishes the National Council for Special Education and sets out a range of services which must be provided. These services include assessments, individual education plans and support services. There is a process of appeals, including mediation, where needs are not met.

The Comhairle (Amendment) Bill is being prepared in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It provides for a new service, to be administered by Comhairle, to allow for the assignment of a personal advocate to persons with disabilities who require particular support in accessing social services. The personal advocate will assist, support and represent the person in applying for and obtaining a social service and will help to pursue any right of review or appeal in connection with that service. Comhairle already has statutory responsibility for independent information, advice and advocacy services regarding the broad range of social services and a particular focus on supporting access for people with disabilities. It is particularly significant that Comhairle is also the mainstream service provider in this area and the Bill to be introduced by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is a clear illustration of the Government's ongoing commitment to a policy of mainstreaming and social inclusion for people with disabilities.

It is intended that outline sectoral plans will be published at the same time as the disability Bill and disability interest groups and mainstream service providers will be consulted before the plans are finalised. The plans will set out a range of actions for disability-specific services and the delivery of accessible transport and environmental infrastructure. The plans are under preparation at present and will over time, through a programme of positive action, help to remove barriers to participation by people with disabilities in our society.

As Senators will be aware, the Equality Bill 2004 is currently on Second Stage in the Dáil. The Bill amends the Employment Equality Act 1998, in accordance with the requirements of an EU directive. The key change regarding employees with disabilities is that the Bill will place a duty on employers to adapt the workplace to facilitate their needs, unless such a measure would impose a disproportionate burden. A particularly important illustration of the continuing progress in promoting the social inclusion of people with disabilities is the EU Eurobarometer survey carried out to assess the impact of the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003. Ireland scored the highest of all European countries in terms of people's awareness of disability issues, including issues such as access to public facilities and, specifically, the rights of people with disabilities to equal treatment. Across a range of questions, Ireland showed an awareness level of around 60% to 80% compared to levels as low as 25% in some other countries. Much of the survey focused on the awareness generated during European Year of People with Disabilities. However, the results obtained when people were questioned specifically on awareness of anti-discrimination laws and the rights of people with disabilities to gain access to employment are of crucial importance. On these issues, Irish respondents showed awareness levels of 78% on anti-discrimination laws and 89% on rights to access employment.

It is fair to conclude that the high levels of awareness in Ireland can be attributed to some extent to the success of the Special Olympics in 2003 and the many projects organised country-wide to celebrate the European Year of People with Disabilities. High levels of awareness are also attributable to the fact that anti-discrimination legislation has been in place in this country since enactment of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2000.

The challenge is to put in place a framework to enhance service delivery to people with disabilities. The framework is broad and includes health, education, employment, advocacy and physical access to buildings and transport, etc. The Government is conscious of the complexity and cross-cutting nature of the issues involved and, in order to support ministerial engagement throughout the process, has referred oversight of the Bill and other elements of the framework to the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion. The Government and the Cabinet Sub-committee on Social Inclusion are giving particular attention to the Bill and the views emerging through the consultation process. Contacts with the disability legislation consultation group are being maintained. The Bill is at an advanced stage of preparation and will be published as soon as the Government has completed its work.

Ireland has had a strong record in recent years in the area of disability equality. In equality and mainstream service provision, our administrative and legislative provision compares well with best European practice. This is evidenced by the European Commission's multi-annual action plan which supports legitimate demands for equal rights for people with disabilities, especially in employment.

The action plan also focuses on mainstreaming services for people with disabilities. The Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner has indicated that the major priority for the enlarging European Union should be the implementation of the employment equality directives in all member states. These two key future objectives of the enlarged EU on disability have already been law and practice here for some years.

The awareness of our population about people with disabilities and their right to equality is ahead of other European countries. I have no doubt the proposed disability Bill will again show this country can be among the most progressive states in Europe in establishing a statutory basis for assessment, service provision and the infrastructure required for the effective delivery of these key services.

I welcome the Minister of State. I hope the Government gets the legislation right this time. The previous, long awaited disability Bill, published by the former Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, was greeted with outrage by the disability sector and was withdrawn following strenuous objections by the main disability organisations because it was not rights based.

Since then the Disability Legislation Consultation Group, DLCG, has been established. I pay tribute to the many representative bodies on the group, which include the Disability Federation of Ireland, the Forum of People with Disabilities, Mental Health Ireland, the National Association for Intellectual Disability in Ireland, NAMHI, the National Parents and Siblings Alliance, the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies, the Not-for-Profit Business Association and People with Disabilities in Ireland. The range of groups involved in the DLCG shows how frustrated and upset these groups have been in recent years.

I was shocked to read in a NAMHI pamphlet that more than 3,500 people with an intellectual disability are waiting for services, while a further 1,600 people are on waiting lists for a residential place. That is unacceptable in this day and age.

Following the withdrawal of the Bill, the Government established the National Disability Authority with a remit to facilitate meaningful dialogue at national level with people with disabilities, their families, carers and service providers. As part of this process, the Disability Legislation Consultation group published proposals in a document entitled, Equal Citizens. The first proposal, on independent needs assessment and service co-ordination, is that the legislation provide for an automatic right to an independent assessment of need and that services identified as necessary in such assessments be given as a right. Where such services are not currently available, a programme of measures should be put in place to establish them within an established timeframe. In contrast, the Government proposals on needs assessment are not rights based and contain no reference to providing assessment as of right. It also proposes to introduce phased assessments.

Under the heading "Accessibility", the Equal Citizens document states that people with disabilities must have access to all transport, buildings and so forth open to non-disabled people as well as appropriate services in the area of information and communications systems. The Government proposals contain no timeframes within which accessibility and mainstreaming must be achieved. Instead, it will publish draft sectoral plans which will not be finalised for another year, that is, not before the Bill has passed.

The Equal Citizens document also proposes the introduction of an independent complaints process and suggests that complaints be submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman. It also states that officials from the assessment Departments or service providers involved in the assessment of need should not be involved. Under the Government proposals a complicated system for complaints concerning service provision would be established, but the various complaints officers, in making their decisions, must take account of available resources. In the case of mainstreaming, access to the Ombudsman will be provided.

The Government proposals do not place an onus on the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to provide the necessary resources for disability. In addition, other Ministers must take account of the fair and equitable use of resources for people with disabilities from within their budgets. Legislation is of little use without proper resources. Funding for disability should, therefore, be ring-fenced.

Why has the additional Government expenditure during the past five years not eliminated waiting lists? The answer is simple; it has underestimated the level of need. With local and European elections approaching, many of the disability organisations will ask all candidates and political parties canvassing for votes to support rights based legislation.

We need to commit to a programme of capital and revenue funding to eliminate waiting lists for residential day and respite places and to abolish the means tested carer's allowance and replace it with direct payment to all carers. As a politician, I find it frustrating that carers who stay at home to provide an excellent service which saves the health boards and the Exchequer vast resources in time, money and expertise are not given the recognition they deserve. They must receive fair pay for their work. It will be extremely difficult for them to continue without receiving the funding they deserve. I ask the Minister of State to ensure carers are recognised and properly compensated for a job none of us wants to do.

It is not unreasonable to request that the Government place an onus on the Minister for Finance to provide the funding needed for rights based disability legislation. Having been forced to withdraw the previous Bill as a result of the controversy it created, the Government should ring-fence money for the forthcoming disability legislation. I wish the Minster of State well and ask him to remember carers.

I second the amendment and welcome the Minister of State. We all know the publication of the Disability Bill 2001 immediately gave rise to various groups and individuals expressing concerns with the result that the Bill was withdrawn. In the eye of a storm, it is brave to go back to the drawing board.

The Government is bringing forward a variety of changes in a harmonised manner. This Bill supports the enhancement of service provisions for people with disabilities and the principle of mainstreaming in legislation. This will require public bodies to promote equality through their policies and programmes by delivering services to those with disabilities in the same way as they are provided for everybody else. The Bill provides for positive action to remove obstacles which hinder the participation of people with disabilities.

A number of other pieces of legislation are part of the Government's overall strategy to put in place the necessary supports to ensure equal participation of people with disabilities. Arising from lengthy consultations and overseen by the Cabinet Sub-committee on Social Inclusion, the Bill will give statutory effect to a number of important policies. These include priorities such as the right to the assessment of needs and independent redress. This is the first time the State has ever done something like this and it is a very important part of the legislation. I am absolutely delighted that, in this Bill, people with disabilities will be prioritised over able-bodied people looking for State services.

The other legislation which will form part of the co-ordinated framework for the disability sector has already been outlined by the Minister. The first is the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill 2003. It lays down a statutory framework to address the needs of those with educational disabilities. It also provides for the establishment of a national council for special education. There was a debate in this House a few months ago on autism in which such a provision was demanded. The second is the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill which sets out the provision of advocacy assistance to help people with disability to access social services. The third is the Equality Bill which will put measures in place to increase the responsibility of the employer to facilitate employees with disabilities.

We know how important a job is to a person with a disability. It has a great social value attached to it. People with a disability are somewhat limited in their social outlets. A job gives a person with a disability a social outlet and a reason to go on. It is also very important that a safe work environment exists for people with disabilities. It is great to see officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, together with Minister of States, such as Deputy O'Dea, meeting the different groups to thrash out the various problems involved.

This Bill must be set in the context of important recent developments. Last year was the European Year of People with Disabilities. I have seen the efforts of the National Disability Authority to generate an awareness across the country of people with disabilities. The memorable success of the Special Olympics demonstrated the value of creating awareness about disability issues.

I thank the Labour Party for raising this very important issue which allows us to recommit ourselves to bringing forward a whole series of changes, in addition to the disability Bill, for those who suffer from disability. I also remind the Labour Party that the Government put major resources into this area at a time when money was available. This was not done by previous Governments. It is easy to come before the House and shout about what should be done. When others had a chance, they did not address it. I am glad this Government is doing it and nobody need doubt the Government's commitment to disability.

The first issue I wish to raise is the delay in the introduction of the disabilities Bill. Groups like the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped of Ireland, NAMHI, are concerned that the Government wishes to publish the Bill after the local and European elections because it will not contain a rights-based approach. This is yet another cynical move on the Government's part. There is no alternative to rights-based legislation in this area. A number of groups, including NAMHI, the Forum for People with Disabilities and Amnesty International, are leading a campaign called Rights Make the Difference. They are calling on the Government to enact legislation which will establish a set of enforceable rights to enable people with disabilities to achieve equal access, participation in all areas of service provision and employment, and to exercise the same rights and obligations as others to fully participate in Irish society. This includes the provision of an independent needs assessment, services, advocacy and redress. I do not see why people could expect anything less.

The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, claimed that with this legislation Ireland would be one of the most progressive countries in Europe. I do not accept that, unless we enact rights-based legislation and provide proper education for people with disabilities. If we want to live up to the image we presented to the world at the Special Olympics, we must have rights-based legislation. I have dealt with people in my constituency who have children with disabilities. Their whole life is a struggle fighting for things which everyone else takes for granted as basic rights. That must change. Cost is a factor but that will always be an issue, whether in a time of boom or cutbacks. We have to bite the bullet and invest in that area. It has been done in countries that are much poorer than Ireland.

As a representative of the joint committee regarding the Education for Person with Disabilities Bill 2003, I went to Galicia in Spain. They already have legislation on education for people with special needs. It is much more advanced than anything we have in Ireland, yet Spain is a poorer country with higher levels of unemployment. Spain has an advantage in that the numbers attending school are falling so it already has buildings for special schools. However, the investment still had to be made to adapt those buildings and when I asked how that was funded, I was told that it was through borrowing. It is a big no-no for the Irish Government to borrow but that attitude has to be examined. If we invest now, everyone will reap the rewards. What is great about the Spanish system is that it allows so many of the students with disabilities to attend the same schools as everybody else. In some cases, they go to special needs schools. Both types of needs are addressed. The Spanish invested in these areas although they could afford to do so less than us.

There was great momentum evident in the taking of the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill. I know this is not what this motion is about but it should be mentioned. We had hearings before Christmas and the Bill seems to be progressing at a very fast pace. However, the momentum seems to have stopped just after Christmas and certainly has not featured in the Seanad. I hope the Bill comes before the Seanad to be finalised soon and that it is not delayed for a long time, as was the case regarding other Bills.

Following widespread consultation, the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs launched a report about five months ago on the rights and needs of carers. It recommended the abolition of the means test for carers, more investment in respite care and the assessment of needs of carers. This is another issue the Government must address. It is totally unfair that there is a means test for the carer's allowance. Many anomalies arise as a result. For example, those who opt for the widow's pension cannot get the respite carer's grant.

Senator Feeney mentioned what the Government has done, but much more needs to be done. If it is not done now, when will it be done? We have had unprecedented wealth in recent years and we now have the opportunity to do something for people with disabilities.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Browne. I also welcome this motion, which has been tabled by the Labour Party. It deals with a very important issue and I have met many groups in respect of it in my capacity as a Senator. The Government is giving it very careful consideration. As one knows, the previous Government was working on this legislation. It is complex and many of the relevant issues require detailed consideration.

The review group appointed in April 2002 has carried out many consultations with Ministers and the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach in particular is very committed to the Bill, as are the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputies McDowell and O'Dea, respectively.

It is fundamental that the Bill be rights-based. Many of the groups I have met are determined to ensure this is the case and to ensure total access to employment, buildings and services. The fundamental point of the Bill is that there should be no discrimination whatsoever against somebody with a physical or mental disability.

However, there are other areas in which improvement is possible. The Barcelona declaration has been passed by many councils, and Roscommon County Council made a decision to accept it on Monday although the executive would not be in favour of the councillors. The declaration is a very important document, supported by the European Union, and it is vitally important in terms of access to buildings and services. Most old buildings, including this House, are not very disability-friendly as such. Many groups I have brought to the House, elderly groups in particular, have great difficulty gaining access to parts of it. We have a long way to go regarding access. All new buildings must conform to the requirements of the legislation because access is vital. When the new sports complex was being developed in Roscommon town, the County Roscommon Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the Brothers of Charity and other disability groups were consulted so the building would be totally accessible to those with disabilities. "A lot done, more to do" is basically the formula as far as disability is concerned.

Having had discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and others, I noted that the legislation is very complex. However, at least we are making progress in the absence of legislation. The passage of this Bill should be a priority of the Government. There is no reason to delay it until after 11 June. Having it published by 11 June would serve as a very constructive support. Needless to say, it will not be passed on 11 June but its publication prior to this date would be a clear signal that, of all the parties in the State, Fianna Fáil has been the most proactive in supporting those with disabilities.

Personal carers should be mainstreamed and not just working under the FÁS scheme. They have provided enormous support to the disabled. I have come across many individuals in Roscommon who have been given personal assistants and this has changed their lives fundamentally. They now have access to public places and can travel and go on holidays accompanied by their personal assistants. This represents a major shift. Carers should be mainstreamed under the Department of Health and Children rather than operating on a part-time basis because it can be very difficult to train another carer for a disabled person, especially a physically disabled person, if the original carer is changed after three or four years. This is because the disabled person becomes familiar with the original carer. The Government should note that we have made progress in this area, but not enough. I have met many disability groups who are very anxious to ensure this matter is fully addressed.

There should be a special carer's allowance irrespective of whether he or she is in receipt of other forms of social welfare. A constituent from south Roscommon has a disabled son, now a young man, for whom she is caring. She is a widow in receipt of the widow's allowance and is being refused the carer's allowance as a result although a widow not caring for anybody would receive the same amount. There is room to offer more support to such carers. The more disabled persons that can be maintained by carers in the community, the better.

This motion presents a great opportunity to discuss the content of the Bill, which has not been given a public airing recently. The Bill should be brought forward and enacted as speedily as possible. I hope this will be in 2004. If this Labour Party motion can assist in pressing the Government, I will be delighted. It should not go to a vote because both sides are of the same opinion. Both parties in Government, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, are totally committed through the programme for Government to bringing forward this legislation and we will do so. We have the necessary funds and we are prepared to grasp the nettle.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for allowing me to speak on this motion and I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I certainly hope the legislation will be enacted during the term of this Government. It would be a great tribute to the disabled, who have suffered so much. No other group has been more deprived of services and everything should be done to prioritise its needs, not just to grant it equal status.

I agree with much of what Senator Leyden said and I want to address a couple of the points he made. He stated this issue has slipped down the list of political priorities in the sense that it has not been mentioned at any length in either House in recent months. It is approximately one year since my party put down a Private Members' motion in the Lower House on it. The reason is that there has been a lengthy, complex and consultative process under way which has resulted in a broad degree of consensus, to which we are party, on the way forward. All of us want to see the required degree of service provided within a reasonable time. The whole area of disability is one in which there is a broad political consensus. All of us agree there must be an independent assessment of needs, that people need to agree the services with which they will be provided, that there should be an appeal mechanism in the event there is no agreement and so on and that there should be some means of implementing the schedule of services when it is agreed and set out.

The difficulty arises with the so-called "rights based" approach. In a sense, the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, put his finger on it. Having gone through a lengthy description of what will be in the Bill, he then used the crucial phrase "within available resources". That is where the critical breakdown of consensus arises. It is important for us to be clear about what that means. When we and the various advocacy groups talk about a rights based approach, we mean that, ultimately, if a service provider, a Department or whatever is unable or refuses to implement the assessment of needs which has been agreed or set out, then the individual has the right to go to court to have it implemented or to get recompense if it is not implemented. In essence it means that if we are to accept an individual has that right within certain constraints — I agree time should be given to the service provider — we must give an absolute priority to this issue. Interestingly, Senator Leyden said just that at the end of his contribution. We must say that come what may, whether there is an economic downturn or whether resources are less plentiful than in the previous year, we will fulfil our obligation to these citizens who have particular needs.

The Minister of State said it was not the tradition in jurisdictions with a common law background. In a sense that is nonsense because there are recent examples where the political will has existed and the money has been committed in advance and spent. During the tenure of the former Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, the Government decided to agree to multi-annual budgeting for overseas development aid. The essence of the agreement was that the amount provided year on year would be agreed three years in advance. It was delivered because the political will existed to do so. That agreement held, notwithstanding the fact that towards the end of that time there was something of an economic downturn.

That is what is required of Government in these circumstances. The Government is being asked to say that, as a matter of priority, the funding will be made available for a set period into the future to meet the needs and rights of these citizens. We are not asking it to make some great leap into the unknown and to do something which was hitherto unknown in our law because, frankly, I do not accept that argument. We are asking it to find the money. It is not a bottomless pit; we are not talking about a huge amount of money. We do not have a complete database of physical and sensory needs but we have a good idea of what is required in the area of intellectual disability, for example. A national intellectual disabilities database has been in place for some years. It has made a careful assessment of the requirements of people with intellectual disabilities. We know, roughly speaking, the number of day, respite and residential care places needed. That is a quantifiable need in that the analysis has been done and we know what is required.

I am not one of those, particularly when talking about the health service, who likes to say Government has failed absolutely, that nothing has been done and nothing has been achieved. It is right to acknowledge that during the tenure of the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, progress was made and that the Department is, or certainly was at that time, seized of the issue. The assessment was done and the need was identified. It knew the number of places needed. Progress was being made in making places available until the 2003 budget. Unfortunately, since then, for whatever reason — I suspect it is the Department of Finance — the political will has not been there, the programme set out has not been fulfilled and the resources have become much more difficult to find. The political will needs to be found.

The major blockage here comes not particularly from within Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats, but from within the Department of Finance. In a sense, I do not blame it because that is what the Department of Finance does. It does not like to make what it sees as open-ended commitments. It does not like saying that it does not know how much a particular programme will cost but that it will fund it as a matter of entitlement into the future, and will do everything possible to ensure it does not have to do so. It is very much a matter for the Minister for Finance and the various Ministers concerned with this issue to push their case at Cabinet and get a political decision which will oblige the Department of Finance to do something which is counter-instinctive and which it does not like doing, namely, making a commitment into the future to fund the needs which are undoubtedly there.

I wish to comment on some aspects of the Bill. It is important that if we set out obligations which are to be imposed on service providers, they are realistic. It is also important that they are, in some way, imminent. We should not, as the Government did when it published the last Bill, say to Iarnród Éireann that it has 12 or 15 years to make railway stations accessible to people with disabilities. That is not acceptable. We need to give hope to people with disabilities and to say to them that, within a realistic period, whether it be three, four or five years, they will be able to gain access to all public transport. There are many ways of slaying a cat and one way for Government to accede to what people are looking for would be to set targets so far down the road that they are out of sight. That, too, is unacceptable.

I refer to community employment schemes and work. It is generally agreed that approximately 70% of people with disabilities are unemployed or underemployed. There are some people who do not want to work and who are not able to do so irrespective of circumstances. However, there are many people with disabilities who are capable of and want to work, in many cases part-time. In that context, the various employment schemes run by FÁS, under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, come into play. In the general cutbacks that have taken place within those schemes, the needs of people with disabilities have been largely ignored.

It is essential we acknowledge these schemes are important in two ways. Many organisations, including that with which Senator Kett is involved, depend largely on community employment schemes in that people with disabilities depend on others working within the schemes to provide facilities and care for them. In addition, people with disabilities use, and are on, those schemes. It is important we focus on that when dealing with community employment schemes. I know the policy of Government is to mainstream the provision of care and of those facilities but that is not without its difficulties. From representations we have received, we are all conscious of difficulties experienced by organisations.

Our purpose in putting down this motion is simple. It is a wake-up call to Government and is a way of articulating and giving a voice to the increasing frustration of the advocacy groups which went along with the consultation process in a spirit of good faith but which are feeling increasingly disappointed and frustrated that it has not produced the results which we all hoped for and anticipated.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.

  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lydon, Donal J.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Minihan, John.
  • Morrissey, Tom.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, Fergal.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • O’Meara, Kathleen.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Terry, Sheila.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators O’Meara and Tuffy.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.

  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lydon, Donal J.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Minihan, John.
  • Morrissey, Tom.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, Fergal.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • O’Meara, Kathleen.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Terry, Sheila.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators O’Meara and Tuffy.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Top
Share