Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Not only is this Bill not good enough for the citizens of this island with disabilities and their families, it is an insult to them and to all of us for whom equality is a core value. It is not a rights-based Bill, it is a resource-based Bill. For equal rights to be so heavily circumscribed by the dictates of a Minister for Finance, which is sometimes described as the fourth wealthiest state in the world, is beyond my comprehension.

In its comments on the Bill published last November, the Human Rights Commission concluded that our new disability legislation should put in place proper human rights standards and structures. However, it concluded that this Bill does not do this because it does not "guarantee the progressive realisation of the economic and social rights of persons with disability and [guarantee] that standards of services never fall below a floor of core minimum standards consistent with the imperative of human dignity."

The commission also advised the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that:

human rights concerns cannot be viewed as simply one of a number of factors to be considered in the allocation of resources. Considerations of human rights should be moved to centre stage when it comes to resource allocation.

Yet the Bill provides a wide discretion to deviate from this.

It has already been pointed out at the committee hearings that the Bill suffers from a number of fundamental flaws relating to the definition of disability and, thus, eligibility for services, the lack of progressivity in the service regime, the lack of independence and enforceability in the complaints regime and the constrictions on resources, as well as a host of other problems in the detail. All Sinn Féin Deputies will speak to various aspects of this Bill. I will highlight only a few key concerns, dealing primarily with Part 2 on the assessment of need, service statements and redress.

The assessment and service delivery provisions are not rights based and bear virtually no resemblance to the recommendations made by the Disability Legislation Consultation Group in its landmark document, Equal Citizens. The DLCG recommended a fully independent individual needs assessment of the services required to allow each person's basic fundamental needs to be met and to facilitate their equal participation in society. This was to be made available to all people with disabilities as of right and the resulting recommended services provided, progressively if need be, as of right. The group recommended the establishment of a disability support service as an independent statutory agency to conduct the assessment, ensure the coordination of services and where services were currently unavailable to devise a programme of measures to realise the missing services within an established timeframe. It wanted fully independent complaints mechanisms established through the Ombudsman's office, for the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations to be involved in enforcement and for there to be no provision that would preclude the right of peoplewith disabilities to take legal action to enforce their rights if all other remedies have been exhausted.

What does the Government offer instead? It offers an assessment of need only for those who fit the Bill's narrow definition of disability, and that covers only — make no mistake about this — health services and education services. There is no assessment of need for housing or transport, for example, both of which are fundamental to the achievement of equality for people with disabilities. These needs assessments will not be carried out independently but by assessment officers employed by the former health board structure which is now the Health Service Executive. The results are passed on to a liaison officer, another HSE employee, who will prepare a service statement which need not reflect the assessment of need but that must reflect assessed eligibility, resource constraints and the practicability of providing the services. We should focus on the word "practicability". All complaints about this process must be made to a complaints officer, yet another HSE employee, who is subject to the same eligibility, practicability and resource constraints as the liaison officer.

Appeals can only be made to a ministerial appointee, an appeals officer. The appeals officer must also constrain his or her decisions in view of available resources. While people with disabilities can apply to the Circuit Court for enforcement of a decision of a complaints officer or appeals officer, they can only make a High Court application on a point of law.

What will be the result of that? This legislation will exclude people. That is the bottom line. It is arguable that it may cut access to services. It will put no onus on the Government of the day to make resources available for the progressive increase in available services or to increase accessibility. Not one aspect of the assessment, complaints or enforcement process will be truly independent of the service providers and, I emphasise, all aspects will ultimately be subject to the will of the Minister for Finance. Most appallingly, it will prevent redress for those who are deprived of their rights as equal citizens and provide the State with a tailor-made defence against all comers.

This is one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I have ever had the misfortune on which to lay eyes. It is a damning indictment of all those who have been a party to its presentation. I emphasise that people with disabilities deserve positive, fully enforceable rights. This Bill does not deliver to that standard, as recommended by the Disability Legislation Consultation Group in Equal Citizens. It is high time there was a re-referral to the DLCG's publication. Following that, people lost their way in the preparation of this legislation. For this reason, the Bill, as it stands, is simply not good enough for myself, my party colleagues and the people whom I know who are facing life with disability and all the challenges that presents. I have heard other colleagues' contributions on this Stage who will not support it either. It should be brought back to the drawing board.

See this speech in context