Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

This Bill is long awaited. I wish to make some general comments on the disability sector and to comment on the Bill's provisions. These arise from discussions I have had with disability representative groups who are concerned about a number of aspects of the Bill.

I welcome the genuine indications that the Government has a new found concern for, and commitment to, the disability sector. The Disability Bill is an important part of the national disability strategy launched last September by the Taoiseach. There are four parts in the strategy — the Disability Bill, the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004, six sectoral plans and a multi-annual investment programme for disability services. In the budget we have seen a new and strong commitment to setting aside significant funds for investment in the disability sector, although clarity is still required about how that money will be spent. I presume we will receive such clarification in the coming months.

The most important element of a disability strategy is the legal commitment and legal rights given to those living with a disability. The cornerstone of a disability strategy must be a comprehensive disability Bill which satisfies representative groups, as well as people living with a disability, with respect to their rights. The principle behind legislation in this area must be that disabled people have the same right as everybody else to maximise their ability, through education, assessment if necessary and through work, to live as normal a life as possible. To ensure this is the case, the State must take on a legal responsibility in a range of areas, including access, early intervention, treatment, support and ending a mindset of discrimination that clearly exists, which is less pronounced than some years ago but which still requires a Government strategy.

I was fortunate to be asked to speak at a disability forum in UCC recently. It was a sober reminder that people living with a disability do not seek anything extraordinary. They simply demand the right to get the necessary assistance from the State to allow them to live as normal a life as possible. Normal things such as living, working, training, socialising and something as simple as going from one's home to one's shop if one happens to use a wheelchair, are things the State must attempt to facilitate in a more proactive manner than it has done to date. While this debate should never be about charity, many voluntary organisations that provide services to people with disability appeal to people's charity much of the time to finance their activities. As far as the State is concerned, the issue should be honouring people's legal rights and fulfilling commitments based on those rights.

As the UCC forum was centred on access to the workplace, it is shame the Minister of State with responsibility for this area has left. Perhaps I should have started with this part of my contribution. Approximately 10% of the population is affected by disability. When one considers that only 2% of the student population is affected, one starts to realise some of the challenges we face. When one discovers that between 60% and 80% of adults with a disability are unemployed, one begins to realise the extent of the challenge faced by the State. It is not an easy problem to solve through legislation or investment. Despite the fact that unemployment among the general population is down to approximately 4.5%, if one happens to be someone living with a disability, one is likely to be among the 60% to 80% who are unemployed. It is understandable that people who live with disabilities are finally standing up to say this is unacceptable and to demand their rights and access to the workplace where possible. They are not asking for anything extraordinary.

The spectrum of case studies with which we dealt at UCC was a reminder of the very broad spectrum of disability the State must address. One person speaking about the difficulties of the workplace was partially sighted, another was dyslexic, another was in a wheelchair, a fourth was deaf and the fifth was suffering from depression. While this is the range of the spectrum with which the Bill should deal, when we come to consider its definition of "disability", we will see that many of those people are left out.

The fact that the Disability Bill is before the House is welcome given its shelving in the past. The Bill was taken off the table three years ago when we could not get agreement on it and there was a general election in the offing. Tonight's debate allows the Opposition to focus on the many welcome aspects of the legislation, for which I commend the Government, as well as its unacceptable provisions. There are many aspects of the Bill that require adjustment, amendment and change. I hope the Government is willing to consider on Committee Stage the amendments tabled by Members including Deputy Stanton who has done a great deal of work in this area. Many representative bodies have already been very critical of the Bill and expressed their frustration in contacts with Opposition and Government Deputies.

I turn now to specific comments on the text of the Bill. As I have mentioned, there is a real problem with its definition of those people to whom the legislation is relevant. The definition must be broad enough to encompass the vast majority of the 10% of people who have a disability. Instead, the Bill provides that people must be substantially restricted in capacity. What does that mean and how will we define such persons? According to the Bill, a person must have an enduring disability. If a person who has suffered a stroke is on the road to recovery, can he or she be defined as having an enduring disability? Politics aside, many people with disabilities are seriously concerned and have asked directly whether they come under the terms of the legislation. I have been unable to give them a straight answer because, quite simply, I do not know. If one adopted a very restrictive understanding of "substantially restricted in capacity" and "enduring disability", one could leave out the vast majority of people. While I accept that it is especially difficult to define "disability" due to the massive range in the spectrum, the Government must do a better job than it has. As the main Opposition party, Fine Gael will propose an amended wording it hopes the Government will consider constructively.

There is a general concern at the use throughout the Bill of the terms "subject to the availability of resources", "where practicable" and "practicability". These hedge and restrict many of the Bill's positive elements. While the Government says people have the right to an assessment, which is very welcome, it also provides that the plans health boards must put in place to facilitate assessments will be subject to the availability of resources. On one hand, the Government is telling people what they want to hear, but on the other it says if it cannot afford to do assessments, they will not be carried out. The credibility of the legislation is, therefore, called into question. While it uses the terminology people want to see and grants the right to an assessment which has been sought for a very long time, we cannot be sure if a system will be implemented as it is subject to the availability of funds and, or, practicability. As Deputy O'Dowd pointed out earlier, there are staffing difficulties across the country which complicate the implementation of occupational and speech therapy assessments. A level of honesty is required in the context of the welcome and important right to an assessment as outlined in the Bill.

It is crucial to carry out early assessments as disabilities develop over time. If a person is lucky enough to be assessed, he or she receives a services statement which outlines the services he or she requires from the State to live with his or her disability. While that is welcome as it means people will at least know what they need, the problems arise when it comes to providing the services in question. Such provision depends on the availability of resources and whether it is practicable. While the recent budget encouragingly set aside significant resources for the disabilities sector and persuaded people that availability will not be an issue in the next few years, the Government must reassure people further and ring-fence money for certain areas.

I am concerned about the services statement, for example, in the case of a five-year old with a severe speech problem. If he or she receives the assessment to which he or she is entitled, a services statement outlining the treatment he or she needs is issued.

However, there is no requirement on the Department to provide an update of the service statement in two, four or six years' time. The lack of a progressive policy of assessment is a concern. In other words, the progress a child makes between the ages of five and eight needs to be measured given that, in the meantime, the treatment he or she requires could have changed. Assessments must be conducted continually as the disability changes or as other disabilities develop, particularly in the case of children who suffer from development co-ordination disorder. Different problems emerge at different ages and new assessments are required. However, under the legislation the individual is entitled to only one assessment. The Minster of State is shaking her head and I hope I am incorrect. A progressive regime must be put in place so that people with disabilities can see what is happening as their circumstances change throughout their lives.

Many practical examples have been given regarding access to buildings. The Bill proposes that all public buildings should be accessible from the outside by 2015 but we should be more ambitious than that. It is all well and good to have access to a building but the ability to move around within it also needs to be addressed in the legislation. Issues in this regard include the location of fire exits and moving between an office and a cafeteria. For example, if somebody confined to a wheelchair is elected to the next Dáil, how will he or she be able to vote? People with disabilities who are participating in the workforce have raised these issues. The onus on the private sector in this regard should be increased. The Government has a responsibility to co-ordinate with local authorities regarding what is acceptable in the planning and design of buildings owned by private companies.

There is also a concern that no effort is being made to address housing needs in the Bill. If a person with a disability is on a housing list, is he or she considered on the basis of his or her needs? My experience as a local authority member is that no special criteria are applied for the adaption of houses, which is required by people with disabilities.

There are positive examples of Governments amending disability legislation when they listened to Opposition concerns and I hope that will be the case with this legislation. For example, the Education for People with Disabilities Bill became the Educations for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2003, which reflects the change in thinking between the time it was introduced by Government and its enactment. The Minister responsible, Deputy Noel Dempsey, deserves credit. I hope there will be a similar change in mindset on the part of the Minister and his advisers and that he will take on board the legitimate concerns of the Opposition. Most politicians do not like playing politics with disability. They want to make genuine changes so that more positive developments take place and I hope that will be reflected on Committee Stage.

I refer to two projects in Cork, which offer a substantial, valuable service to people with disabilities and their families. Neither project has been mainstreamed nor are they in receipt of funding on a consistent basis. The CABAS project comprises a school on the grounds of Ashton Comprehensive in Cork, which uses the ABA as opposed to the teach method. A valuable one-on-one service is provided for children affected by a broad range of autistic disorders. I appeal to the Government and those interested in disability in education to mainstream funding for a project that has proven itself to be extremely successful for many of the children in attendance. Children require different treatments and education strategies. ABA works for some while teaching works for others. The Department must introduce flexibility to mainstream both educational streams.

The other project is a development co-ordination disorder, DCD, unit in St. Finbarr's Hospital, Cork. A multidisclipinary team provides valuable treatment to young children primarily who have difficult disabilities and face physical challenges. The team comprises an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, a speech therapist, a general practitioner and counselling and support staff for those who face mental challenges. The unit is working superbly and, instead of being under threat of closure, it should be used as a template elsewhere because of its phenomenal success. The professionals involved are constantly worrying about where the next tranche of funding will come from instead of concentrating on what they should be doing, which is providing treatment. For example, the parents of these children are holding a St. Valentine's Ball to raise money. The neglect of such projects, which are a proven success, by Government needs to cease. We must stop being afraid of projects being a victim of their own success. If DCD units are opened in Tralee, Galway and Limerick, parents will bring their children. Successful pilot projects should be mainstreamed in other cities, instead of the participants being afraid of success.

See this speech in context