Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 address the same area. Disabled persons organisations, DPOs, and disabled people themselves have repeatedly been left out of the narrative on decisions that affect their lives. The State has a requirement under the UNCRPD to engage directly with disabled people on legislation that affects them. They must be given their voice. This is not being done sufficiently, though, and we need to legislate for it. The Decision Support Service, DSS, is doing good work, but there needs to be legislation to allow it to apply for the resources it needs to facilitate this engagement. As I mentioned on Second Stage, we were told on pre-legislative scrutiny stage that it should be a case of nothing about us without us where disabled people were concerned.

Amendment No. 7 inserts two further guiding principles. Regarding the first of those, the amendment reads: "The guiding principles contained in subsections (1) to (10) above shall be interpreted consistently with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in particular, Article 12, and General Comment 1 of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." Now that Ireland has ratified the UNCRPD, embedding an explicit reference in guiding principles strengthens the potential for the Act to be interpreted in a manner compatible with the human rights obligations under the convention. The Act was continually referred to by successive Ministers during its development as being an essential part of Ireland’s preparations for ratifying the UNCRPD. Agreeing this amendment recognises that best practice in this field is continually evolving and reaffirms Ireland’s commitment to refining and reinterpreting our law in a manner consistent with our human rights obligations. Agreeing this amendment signals Ireland’s commitment to a progressive and evolving interpretation of this law in light of the emerging understanding of human rights law.

Regarding the second guiding principle, the amendment reads: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any civil or criminal liability on an intervenor, who, in exercising his or her relevant powers, acted in good faith and in accordance with what, at the time in question, he or she reasonably believed to be the will and preferences of the relevant person.”.”." This provision is designed to counteract the criminal offences in decision supports under the principal Act and the 2022 Bill and to remove the emphasis on punishment for getting it wrong where the intervenor has, in good faith, done his or her utmost to assert the relevant person’s will and preference and acted accordingly. This will give much-needed reassurance to individuals considering taking on these roles that they will not be penalised for doing so. It should also ensure that relevant persons can call upon a wider range of potential supporters.

Amendment No. 16 reads: "adhere to the obligations set out in Article 4.3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”.”."

Regarding amendment No. 44, the Disability Act 2005 takes an overly medical model approach to the definition of a disability compared with the conceptualisation of disability under Article 1 of the UNCRPD. The UN’s understanding of disability is broader than that covered under the Disability Act and is more inclusive and reflective of different experiences, for example, people who have experience of mental health services but do not identify with any label or diagnosis and people who have experienced disability-based discrimination even though they do not themselves identify as disabled people. Given that the function of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, disability advisory group is to support IHREC’s work on the UNCRPD, it would be more appropriate to take the convention’s approach to disability rather than the narrow definition of “disability” in the Disability Act.