Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I do not know where the Minister of State is coming from.

A third example of problems concerns an old lady whom I encountered today. She has serious mobility problems and cannot get a place in St. Mary's, Phoenix Park, because it is full. She has a serious physical disability and has no toilet or central heating in her house. She is seriously ill and yet there is no possibility of getting her into a residential care place, which is a basic service. I attempted to deal with the problem today but no service is available. What will happen to this woman? These are examples of the position at present.

Will the Minister of State check to see what has happened to the funding promised in the budget? I acknowledge the substantial increase in funding for the disability area in the budget but is it percolating down to the service providers? This seems to be the problem because I have been told the money is not being provided. People are still waiting for funding to come through but it has not yet done so. Why else would a respite care place be withdrawn? Why else would adequate services for a young man or a residential care place for a person in need not be available?

It is neither today nor yesterday that the debate began on this issue. The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities was established in November 1993 with Mr. Justice Feargus Flood in the chair.

The usual wide consultation took place and the commission drew up a strategy for equality with 402 recommendations, which we discussed in the House on a number of occasions in the past ten years.

Recommendation No. 9 of the commission's report reads:

A Disabilities Act should be introduced which sets out the rights of people with disabilities and means of redress for those whose rights are denied. The Act should outlaw all discrimination against people with disabilities and should require public and private bodies, employers and educators to make reasonable accommodation to meet their needs.

I am not sure if this Bill has fulfilled the recommendations of that report.

The Long Title of the Bill sums it up where it states that this is "An Act to enable provision to be made for the assessment of health and education needs occasioned to persons with disabilities by their disabilities". In other words people have a right to an assessment of their health and educational needs. The Title continues on to say that it is "to enable Ministers of the Government to make provision, consistent with the resources available to them". Immediately the Bill has undermined the entitlement already referred to. When is an entitlement not an entitlement? One either has an entitlement or one does not.

The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, informed the House earlier that everything was hunky dory and that she had all the special educational needs personnel in place. However, one must still obtain assessments from the private sector if one is to have all the youngsters in a school assessed. There is a huge waiting list of principals of primary and secondary schools waiting to have children assessed. They cannot get them assessed through the State system because not enough qualified people conduct assessments. This means they must buy in the service if they have the money to do so. If they do not, they must simply do without it. This approach has been ingrained once again as it is consistent with the resources available to the principals and their obligations in regard to the allocation of services to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

The Bill also provides for appeals, complaints and so on. It provides for a flawed system which is not much different from anything we have had before. It provides for a commitment to provide the service but this is immediately cautioned by the need for resources. If the resources are not available, the services will not be provided. One can appeal the matter or make a complaint, for which there is a mechanism. Once the assessment is carried out, one goes to a liaison officer who seeks a provider of the service in so far as is practicable as section 10 states. However, no progress has been made in this area as there is a backlog of service requirements. Unless the commitment is phenomenal, we will not get the results people need and youngsters will fall through the system. Even if the needs assessment is delivered upon, the services will not be there to back it up.

The issue of prisoners' health, education and employment are again in the news. An Agreed Programme for Government states:

We will complete the programme of expansion of appropriate care places for people with disabilities with, in particular, the ending of the inappropriate use of psychiatric hospitals for persons with intellectual disabilities.

What has happened to this commitment? There is much to be found wanting in this area. The programme also states, "We will increase funding for the full range of open and supported training and employment schemes for people with disabilities." Again we must wait to see if this promise will be delivered. The programme states: "We will complete consultations on the Disabilities Bill and will bring the amended Bill through the Oireachtas and include provisions for rights of assessment, appeals, provision and enforcement." While the right of assessment is included in the Bill, the right of provision is subject to the availability of resources. When one looks at the fine print, the rights of assessment is subject to the same caveat, meaning this is not a rights-based Bill. The programme further states, "We will expand the income limits for the carer's allowance so that all those on average industrial incomes can qualify". This could be dealt with in a meaningful fashion in the provision of resources. The best people to care for anyone, elderly or disabled, are the family and neighbours but they do not have the financial back-up to do so. The Government should not have expanded the means-testing for carer's allowance but eliminated it. If it was abolished it would create categories of carers, willing and anxious to provide care that would be better than any offered by State service or institution. If the Government acted on this meaningfully, with one real action, a huge difference could be made.

The programme for Government states, "We will legislate for the achievement of the employment quota for people with disabilities in the civil and public service." Is legislation coming through to ensure this? Dublin City Council may have achieved the 3% quota in this regard, but I am aware of no other Department or public sector employer which has done so. Legislation must be introduced to achieve this promise.

The entitlement of people with an intellectual disability in a prison environment is in need of attention. It seems not to be improving but deteriorating. Many Members will have seen last night's "Prime Time" programme, dealing with the Central Mental Hospital and the prison system. It indicated there was a large increase in certificates being granted that resulted in people being involuntarily transferred from prison to the hospital. They were then subject to receiving medication against their will, effectively being denied their rights. The number dealt with in this capacity has increased enormously in the last two years. Is that a sign of equal citizenship? How can the Departments of Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform connive to deprive prisoners of their rights in this manner? There is no review mechanism. The argument was made that the prisoners are psychotic and, therefore, cannot consent to whether they wish to go to the hospital. Many of the prisoners transferred and certified as insane are not insane. Yet they are transferred to the Central Mental Hospital and subject to medication against their will. Their rights are undermined as they would have been 100 or 200 years ago. This is not progress. There is no provision in the Bill to change this.

The issue was raised on the Order of Business to which the Tánaiste, in reply, referred to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill. That Bill has been around since 2002, resting in the Seanad. Like much of the legislation from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it seems to hang around for a long time. When will it be updated so that prisoners will have the same rights as other citizens? In last night's television programme, the authorities claimed that as there are now more clinics in prison, they are discovering more prisoners with mental handicaps. That is putting a good gloss on the matter, as if the authorities are doing something beneficial. Last year 295 prisoners were transferred to the Central Mental Hospital. None had a say in the matter. They are simply certified as insane, irrespective of their situation.

Much work has to be done in this area. The proposal to locate the Central Mental Hospital on the same site as the new prison shows us the direction of this policy. Will the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, allow the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to rule the roost on the location of the Central Mental Hospital? Approximately 35% of the hospital's patients have not gone through the court system. There is no reason to have it located on prison grounds.

There is more to be desired in this Bill. I am delighted the budget will provide new resources for the area. However, those funds must go to those providing the services on the ground. I hope the Minister will accept amendments to make the Bill more rights based.

See this speech in context