James Breen (Clare, Independent)

My first comment on the Disability Bill is that the definition of "disability" is too constricted to cover the broad spectrum of disabilities evident in our society. In reality, this Bill leaves disability open to the interpretation of employers, service providers and those making assessments.

The Bill has little chance of working if other essential elements of the disability rights strategy are not enacted. These elements were set out by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in 1996 and, as yet, are not fully operational. "Disability" is defined in the National Disability Authority Act as "disability, in relation to a person, means substantial restriction in the capacity of a person to participate in economic, social or cultural life on account of an enduring physical, sensory, learning, mental health or emotional impairment".

After consulting a number of people involved in putting forward submissions on this Bill, I have been left dismayed that the essentials for equality and for decency have been ignored and those people who invested time and energy in this process have been left saddened, frustrated and very angry at what they see as a wasted process, which was widely expected to meet most of their expectations and aspirations.

We all know disability and special needs cross all divides and affect all sectors of society. When left undetected and under-protected, a person can suffer from low self-esteem, a sense of isolation and can turn to drug abuse, crime and many other destructive lifestyles. We are all entitled to basic human rights under the Constitution, however if one has a disability, one does not have all one's basic rights under this Bill. There is little hope that disability rights will be guaranteed without a change to the Constitution. This Bill is not even a rights-based Bill, as promised by the Taoiseach. A purely rights-based Disability Bill will not achieve the essential function of completing the commission's strategy for an inclusive society. To have these rights respected and implemented, they must be clearly stated in legislation and laid bare in this Bill.

It is difficult to conceive how a rights-based approach will work when existing legislation relates to the "reasonable accommodation" requirement. A firm commitment by the State to implement the actions specified is imperative and the phrase "resources permitting" should be removed once and for all. Equally, a rights-based Bill that does not locate responsibility within the Department of the Taoiseach has little chance of achieving interdepartmental cross-cutting and the co-ordination of services.

This Bill is based on a medical model and not on the social model as expected. The philosophy of independent living is not mentioned once. Funding is based on budgets. The independent assessment of needs is a joke. How can it be independent when it appears that everyone involved in the assessment process works for the health board? There is no independence from a Government when it controls a person's salary, pension and promotional prospects, which brings me to another point. The Garda, the Defence Forces and the Prison Service are exempt from the 3% quota in this Bill.

The fundamental issue covered here is health, but what of education, income, employment, transport, communication, social inclusion, access to all public buildings etc.? The current domiciliary allowance paid to disabled young people is only paid until a young person reaches 16 years of age. He or she must then sign on for a disability allowance. This is unrealistic and the allowance should remain in place until the young person reaches 18 years of age and, therefore, his or her special needs status remains intact.

Education does not stop at 18 years of age for anyone, particularly for those with special needs. Education also includes training and sheltered workshops. Parents now have the extra burden of trying to fight for the rights of their special needs young people. However, they are used to doing this as they have done so for the past 18 years, fighting for their children's entitlements as equal citizens of this country. This Bill does nothing to ease their concerns and to diminish their fight.

This Bill only includes services the health board already provides and services it believes it can provide comfortably within the budget. Will the next budget provide for all those special needs and for disabled children who are currently awaiting speech therapists, occupational therapist and special assessment? I hope it does, because this Bill does nothing to push forward the rights or fulfil the needs of these people. What about the provision of a school-workshop personnel in place five days a week as opposed to the one or two days currently available? What about the provision of interpreters for the hearing impaired in schools? This Bill does not make provision for the diverse culture of disabilities.

How will this Bill be enforced because, as far as I can see, the intended process is layered with newly created bureaucracy and appears to protect the State from its obligations to persons with disabilities? This Bill leaves a person with disabilities with fewer rights than a person without a disability.

The Bill must specify clearly the way in which this system is managed and evaluated. It must enforce the rights of the disabled person, whatever the disability, and should make everyone aware that when someone has the fundamental right to something, this right is vindicated, regardless of the cost. It must be person centred and needs driven and must provide an independent appeals system that provides a right of redress to those who feel unfairly treated. This type of process could well be established under the remit of the National Disability Authority.

I refer to the point Deputy O'Sullivan made on disabled people in Clare. They have set up a model for the rest of the country to follow. The Department of Health and Children singled out Clare as another pilot scheme in the Hanly report. Responsibility for services for the disabled in Clare is being handed over to the Irish Wheelchair Association. The Irish Wheelchair Association does excellent work but why change something which disabled people in Clare have enjoyed for several years where they have personal assistants and leaders? Now they will be given a personal assistant who they may not like. Will the Minister of State investigate that and return the situation to the status quo? If he wants to see a centre for independent living, he should come to Clare. I would ask the Minister of State not to fix something which is not broken. The system in Clare is not broken but the health board is trying to mend it. Will the Minister of State give a guarantee that he will investigate that?

See this speech in context