Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)

I would like to quote from the first paragraph of this Bill's explanatory memorandum:

The Disability Bill is part of the Agreed Programme for Government and a commitment in "Sustaining Progress". The Bill is a key part of the National Disability Strategy being put in place by Government to underpin the equal participation of people with disabilities in society.

The memorandum then lists a number of other elements of the strategy. I submit that the Bill will not achieve its objective of underpinning "the equal participation of people with disabilities in society" because it is quite clear that is deficient in many ways. I understand that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has presented the Bill. Given that three years passed since the Disability Bill 2001 had been introduced, I would like to know what the Department did for three years before it completed its preparation of this legislation.

I do not doubt that people with disabilities were marginalised in society in the past. Such people were so busy with their own lives, for example, working to overcome the obstacles placed in their way, that they were not involved until recently in the lobbying process necessary to achieve their rights. That has changed in recent years, however. For example, people with disabilities succeeded in ensuring that the defective 2001 Bill was withdrawn, with the help of public lobbying and pressure and the work of Opposition parties in the Dáil. The Government withdrew that Bill in shame just before the last election, while promising that it would introduce a rights-based disability Bill. It broke that promise, which helped it to be re-elected at the last election.

The then Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, promised representatives of disability groups that she would consult all such bodies fully before publishing a rights-based disability Bill after the 2002 general election. The Deputy has been sacrificed in the intervening three years — she has lost her position as Minister of State — because of her determination to introduce a rights-based disability Bill, as promised. Before the last election, she said she would consult the various groups about the promised rights-based legislation.

Although the 2001 Bill was withdrawn almost three years ago, we continue to debate the inadequacies and shortcomings of the Government's proposed legislation in this area. Why did whoever was responsible for the production of this Bill — it may have been the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, or the Minister, Deputy McDowell — not consult fully the disability lobby groups and the bodies representative of people with disabilities and their carers? They have disappointed those with disabilities yet again.

The following motion was passed at a meeting in the RDS on 8 February last:

This meeting, representative of people with disabilities throughout Ireland, resolves that the Disability Bill 2004 is seriously inadequate and defective. As it stands, the Bill will do nothing to improve the lives of people with disabilities or their families; it will not meet the widespread demand for basic rights; and it will force people with disabilities into a bureaucratic nightmare in the search for essential services.

This meeting further resolves that at a minimum, the Bill must be amended to include a clear, unequivocal right to an independent assessment of need for every person with a disability. That assessment must be translated in law into a statement of entitlement to services, together with an agreed plan to secure access to those services within a reasonable timeframe if the services are not immediately available. The Bill must also provide for a genuine appeals and complaints procedure that is independent in every way, so that persons with a disability have the right of redress in any situation where essential services are being unfairly denied to them. Finally, the Bill must provide for meaningful progress and targets in relation to issues of employment and access to buildings and services.

This meeting finally resolves that we will continue to campaign vigorously, and lobby our public representatives, until this reasonable position is met.

That motion, which was passed at a well-attended meeting, is fair enough. Deputy Cassidy mentioned earlier the faults with the Bill, as outlined to all Deputies by the various groups. I had great hopes until the Deputy clarified his remarks by saying that, despite his reiteration of the groups' opinions, he would support the Bill and the Government's amendments to it. It was quite a weak response, especially as the Deputy had given the impression that he was in favour of the rights being sought by the groups representing people with disabilities.

The Bill does not provide for a clear right to an independent assessment of the needs of people with disabilities. It does not put in place an independent appeals and complaints procedure, or meaningful targets for access to buildings, services and employment. Does it help people with disabilities who wish to upgrade their skills to return to college or full-time education? Will such people be allowed to retain their invalidity pensions when they return to education? I do not think that is catered for in the Bill. Such a provision should be included in the Bill because it can be shattering for a person on disability allowance to be told he or she will lose his or her allowance if he or she returns to full-time education. We are saying to such people, in other words, that they will never work again, or they will not be in a position to take up work again, so there is no point in them trying to improve their educational qualifications. It is totally unacceptable. This issue should have been dealt with in the Bill.

See this speech in context