Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

The Disability Bill has at last come before this House. For the disabled, it should be vitally important and serve as a landmark but, unfortunately for them, it falls remarkably short on both counts. Before I address the Bill, I must acknowledge the recent establishment of a databank for the disabled. Much valuable work was done in this regard. It allows us to ascertain the extent of the problem that exists and to monitor progress in this field. I must also acknowledge that we have come a long way in recent years in terms of disability, but we still have a long way to go.

The main reason we are debating this Bill is the ill-fated Disability Bill 2001, which was unacceptable to a very wide spectrum of disabled and able-bodied people. Unfortunately, the provisions of the Disability Bill 2004, or rather its restrictions, and the language in which they are couched indicate that it was certainly not worth the wait. The principal rights conferred on disabled people by this Bill include the right to an individual needs assessment and service statement, the right to make complaints to a complaints officer and the right of appeal to an independent appeals officer.

The smooth operation of this procedure and the enforcement of these rights depend on that hoary old chestnut "availability of necessary resources", the ultimate opt-out clause. People with disabilities have long struggled to achieve recognition and equality. Prior to this, society disparaged them, hiding them or looking down on them. Officially, they were regarded as medical conditions, labelled and valued only for the curiousity their difference provoked. Social service agencies tend to view people with disabilities primarily in medical terms, as people who are injured or ill needing to be fixed or cured.

Disabled people need accommodation and services that will allow them to reach their fullest potential. They do not need sympathy of the misguided kind offered by a lady who, on meeting a wheelchair-bound man operating his chair with his little finger, said how awful she felt on his account, how difficult life must be for him, how sad was his condition and that she would rather be dead than be like that. This is a common attitude but it must change. A lingering image of the Special Olympics is the giant status of the special Olympians and the triumph of human spirit that so many displayed on that unforgettable occasion.

The publication in 1996 of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities made the disabled a force with which to be reckoned. The launch by the then President, Mary Robinson, of the report, which contained almost 500 recommendations, emphasised the large gulf yet to be bridged before people with disabilities could claim equality.

Had the recommendations of this bible for the disabled been implemented in the intervening eight years it would have become part of our national consciousness and indelibly marked our institutions and culture. It covered virtually every aspect of life, from the height of drinking fountains to the width of toilet doors, seating arrangements for cinemas and outdoor events, accessible parking, teletext and captioning, guide dogs in restaurants, braille buttons in lifts, public transport access — the list goes on. There were many excellent recommendations in the report. It amounted to a civil rights Act for the disabled which would have had the effect of bringing them into the mainstream of society and placing obligations on service providers and employers. Some of the recommendations have been implemented but sadly far too few, merely those that did not entail too much money.

This is the consideration that permeates every facet of this Bill. It is being introduced as part of a national disability strategy which also incorporates the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 providing for personal advocates for those who seek a service. The legally enforceable rights of the disabled to services have long been a bone of contention. Successive Governments have crassly and consistently ignored such fundamental rights and opposed the introduction of these reasonable entitlements and urgently needed services. There are several caveats or opt-out clauses in the Disability Bill 2004 that will seriously hinder disabled people from accessing services.

The Bill does not even require the Government to provide the relevant service if it is deemed too impractical or costly in the context of available financial resources. This is a serious gap. Clauses such as "not possible or practical to provide", "appropriate allocations", "availability of resources", "budget priorities" undermine the Bill's commitment to ensuring that people with disabilities receive the necessary service. The Government can use language to opt out of almost any services if it so chooses.

Disabled persons have the right to be treated like all able-bodied members of the community, enabling them to participate fully in, and contribute to, every level in society. It is most regrettable that this Bill merely confers conditional rights dependent on the state of the public finances. It falls very far short of the rights-based legislation for which disability groups campaigned. The undertaking in the 2002 programme for Government to provide for enforceable rights of assessment, appeals and service provision, appears to have been abandoned.

See this speech in context