Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the Disability Bill, which has engaged this House more than any other legislation I have seen in my time here. It is legislation in which everyone has an interest. Other than Government Ministers and supporters, it appears there is a consensus that this Bill is fundamentally flawed. This view of the Bill is not based purely on political gamesmanship. This side of the House recognised that the increase in funding for disability-related issues announced in the last year's budget was a positive measure and were sufficiently gracious to applaud it. These same Members, however, in examining this Bill, find fundamental flaws which must be addressed.

These flaws go back almost to the very structures of our democratic society. The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary provide the checks and balances necessary for a democratic society. While the Executive is crowing about the success of the economy, possibly the leading criticism of our society is that there is an almost universal inability on the part of the Executive to provide the necessary services for people who encounter misfortunes such as health problems and disability. That failure is particularly marked in the provision of services for people with disabilities. I spoke recently to a friend in Killarney who explained that he had become a carer of a near relative because of the relative's disability. He gave voice to a common sentiment, that it was only when he found himself in those circumstances he realised what the situation is like for people with disabilities.

These people depend on society to provide assistance for them. This widespread sense of inability to provide proper public services despite our economic success is one of the reasons this Bill and the issue of how we legislate to try to improve the provision of such services is of interest. It is almost the cornerstone of the real debate in society. If we are such a successful and rich country, why are we so unsuccessful in delivering the quality of life and services we expect to go in tandem with that economic success? The Executive has been getting this wrong and must change the way it provides services if it is to improve our quality of life.

I welcome some aspects of this Bill. We honestly welcome the areas of improvement and the areas of the Bill that provide assessments in certain cases that are not provided at present. Likewise, I welcome the setting of new employment targets within the public service as a good example. I also welcome the provision for access, as even the most simple of things can bar the involvement of people with disabilities in society. I welcome the aspects of the Bill that allow for the provision of services, access and employment.

However, this Bill falls down on the issue of the Executive and the Judiciary. In setting up complex appeals, complaints and assessment mechanisms in Part 2 of the Bill and then precluding access to the courts by people to vindicate their legal rights, the Government is nominally giving with one hand but taking away a citizen's fundamental right to access to the Judiciary with the other. Given that the campaign on this issue has centred on whether we should adopt a rights-based approach, that the State can be seen cynically to provide the type of assessment we need yet remove the most fundamental safeguard we have in society and which forms part of the structure of our democratic checks and balances, namely, the role of the Judiciary, to the extent that all that is left is the facility to question a point of law rather than the ability to uphold one's rights in the High Court, is a remarkable flaw in this Bill which has been universally noted and commented upon by legal opinion. The Government has found itself in some difficult pickles over recent legislation but this Bill will lead it into similar court challenges. The Government has been too long in office, is too arrogant and too certain of its smug ways to accept this and to listen to this part of our democratic society, the Legislature whose job is to highlight fundamental flaws in legislation.

The Minister claims the removal of the right to access to the courts is because the Government wishes to save legal fees. If we have a good system, the right provision of services and the right assessment system, the Government should have nothing to fear from judicial analysis. The Judiciary has played a valid and important role in society by providing many of the significant developments and benefits that exist. When the Government says the State cannot do something because it is unaffordable or too difficult, people's eyes are opened only when the Judiciary states otherwise.

The recent Supreme Court decision on the nursing home charges controversy is a classic point. It took a Supreme Court decision for people to be honest and say that what happened was wrong. Everyone has acknowledged it was wrong. We were able to do so because it was a judicial decision and we live in a society that respects the Judiciary. The Executive does not carry out this role well and should not be in the business of establishing its own quasi-judicial procedures which exclude the judicial structures from defining people's rights.

There is a second fundamental flaw. While the Government gave a welcome increase in resources in its recent budget, there is nothing in this legislation that allows for the continued and consistent support for a lock-in, as it were, of that type of budgetary decision-making regarding this section of society. The disabled are usually our most vulnerable members. There is a profound fear that the politically pragmatic decision of today to support funding of the disabilities area could easily evaporate in changing economic or political circumstances. An alternative issue could take its place. Having met people who have been involved in the disability lobbying movement, people who have pushed themselves to the limit by campaigning assiduously, I know it is difficult for any group in society to maintain such pressure to safeguard the interests of those they support. It will be difficult for them in three or four years' time after this Bill has been passed and events have progressed to get the same attention, guarantees and support that they have a chance to get now.

I can give a current example of the Government saying something but doing otherwise. The Progressive Democrats opened up the taxi market. At the time, the former Minister of State, Mr. Bobby Molloy, made the correct call on liberalisation in giving a guarantee that 100% of all taxis in the Dublin market would be wheelchair accessible by 2003. What do we find in 2005? There are 12,000 taxis, all of which are welcome, but less than 5% of them are wheelchair accessible. Only 2% or 3% are properly accessible. This is a typical example of where the Government gives a commitment in the Dáil while legislating and later abandons and ignores it.

See this speech in context