Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I am delighted to speak on this important Bill, which has been on Second Stage since November 2004. Since then the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, has heard constant cries from this side of the House that the Bill needs to be amended. The Fine Gael Party considered opposing the Second Stage reading of the Bill, but it was decided that this would let the Government off the hook. Our spokesperson will table more than 100 amendments on Committee Stage, reflecting the concerns we have encountered about the Disability Bill.

A society should be judged not by how it toasts its success but how it deals with its most vulnerable. As our society has evolved, there is much to be desired. When knocking on doors during elections, we encounter many problems of society's successes. People complain about the lack of a second terminal at Dublin Airport, others complain about noise pollution, traffic and global warming. However, there is the mother, living down a long lane in County Wicklow, who puts her child on a bus in a nappy at 7.30 in the morning only to get to school at 9.30 a.m. after a tour of the country. Similar problems exist on the return journey.

Disposable income cannot all be spent on good causes and some must be spent on pastimes. However, provision of funding for the most vulnerable in society is a necessity. Volunteers do much work in dealing with disabilities. At the height of the controversy over the last Disability Bill that was withdrawn in 2001, I attended a public meeting in Bray on the issue. It was a humbling experience for me as a politician as I felt inadequate when put on the stage to answer questions from an audience coping with disabilities. Their problems surpass the majority we as politicians encounter every day. As a society, we have never addressed these issues. Deputy Callanan claims that the Bill will solve all problems and people can rest assured they will be looked after. However, this Bill does not make that promise. It is full of aspirations, which are to be expected of Departments, with no concrete guarantees.

The definition of disability in the Bill raises other issues such as the disabled driver's tax concession scheme. I have a case of a family with one member with Down's syndrome, who spends most of her day on all fours. The family applied for the grant and did not get it. The family then appealed the decision, which has already taken more than 12 months. I tabled numerous parliamentary questions and got in contact with the appeals body who informed me of the length of the waiting list. The case is still unresolved. I also have a case of an individual who suffered a brain haemorrhage when five years of age. He has no use of his right side and restricted leg movement. He applied for the concession but was refused. Who qualifies for these grants? The definition of disability is no different than the one we had last year. Why are these people denied access to these grants?

The Government often claims that little money is drawn down from the disabled person's grant. Has any Member attempted to go through the process of getting the grant? Getting through to the Health Services Executive is an achievement in itself, not to mind tracking down someone to do the job. Many of the executive areas will take assessments from private occupational therapists. Will the Minister consider allowing individuals to get private reports? I have had cases where, by the time the matter was sanctioned, the applicant had passed away.

Hardly a week goes by that Members do not get a request from a group dealing with disabilities. Correspondence from an individual in Vevay Crescent in Bray claimed the Bill does not give any rights, not even the right to an assessment. The disability representative bodies have described it as being fundamentally flawed. It must be changed drastically, they claim, to meet the needs of those with disabilities. I have been requested to demand of the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, that the Bill be redrafted to properly reflect the Government's responsibilities in international human rights and standards. The Minister of State will have received similar letters. These letters are being sent, not as a matter of routine but because there is a genuine belief among many that they are not being listened to and that there is nothing concrete in this Bill. That belief is well founded.

I hope the Minister of State will try to get money from the Minister for Finance for the disability sector, although I accept there is a finite amount of funding. However, it has been reported in the past few days that the estimated tax yield from the insurance products initiative will be approximately €2 billion. I am often concerned that such moneys go into a slush fund to promote pet projects. The Minister of State should make a play for that money and ring-fence it in order that it is spent only on the disability sector. That could be described as a populist approach. It is populist but why should the Government not do it? Let us see something concrete.

I received a letter from Sunbeam House Services in Bray, an organisation which deals with education and the placement of people. Many children are catered for up to the age of 11 or 12 years but when their families seek secondary places, none can be found. I am aware this Bill deals with people over the age of 18 years. According to the letter, a number of parents who have sons and daughters on waiting lists have recently approached Sunbeam House Services to obtain clarity in regard to placements in 2005. At this time, with one quarter of the year gone, Sunbeam House Services is still not in a position to address the worries of these parents because there is no clarity from the Health Service Executive in regard to either the number of new places which might be provided or the quantum of new revenue in capital funding which might be made available to address their needs. Despite a number of promises made by the Government, the parents are concerned that their young sons and daughters who have left or are leaving school will be without a service from 2005.

This is not unique to County Wicklow but happens throughout the country. The Minister and his colleagues are familiar with the situation. I cannot understand why we treat the most vulnerable people in society in such a callous manner. Nowadays, we talk about the child abuse that occurred in previous years. A redress board has been established. Politicians often spend too much time on minor matters; we do not consider the redress board or the tribunal of inquiry into corruption in planning. In future years, when we look back on how we treated disabled people, it will be a source of shame.

There are many organisations in the disability sector. There is a Lalor Centre in my home town but much of its funding comes from voluntary fundraising and an auction. It receives a limited amount from the Government. Some facilities have improved with the arrival of the Celtic tiger. I am familiar with the Cheshire Home in Tullow, County Carlow. One of my relatives was there and in the past ten years facilities have improved. However, often these improvements are due to the person running the facility creating an environment that encourages fundraising. The Cheshire Home in Shillelagh has also improved but this is due to the people working there.

The Minister has said section 5 of the Bill is a novel provision which makes specific arrangements for Ministers to earmark funding for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the legislation. That is extremely vague and Deputy Stanton intends to table amendments to this section. This vagueness is one of the weaknesses of the Bill. A consultation group was assembled to discuss a disabilities Bill and published a report. However, the content of the Bill is different from what the consultation group had envisaged. This is a great country for cheering athletes on their return from the Special Olympics. We have seen the television coverage of people praising and congratulating them. However, afterwards we tend to lock away the problem. We must deal with it.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the assessment of needs. Again, however, this is subject to resources. Section 14(11)(a)(i) provides that if there are no resources, it will not take place. First, the Bill provides that the amount of money the Minister puts aside is optional. Second, there is provision for assessment of needs but this is dependent on it being economically viable.

Part 3 refers to access to buildings and services and provides for the sectoral plans which the various Departments must produce. Access to buildings is one of my main concerns. I accept that doors are available in certain widths but it is difficult to manoeuvre a wheelchair through the patio door of most modern houses. Perhaps the Department will examine this issue. One side of the patio door is stationary whereas with French doors both doors can open.

Many new developments are inaccessible for people with disabilities. I accept that every building cannot be accessible but many of the modern private houses and developments which are being built in higher densities are difficult to access. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, will find that in many of the developments in Galway not only can one not access the house, one cannot access the scheme. That is unpleasant and gives the wrong message. The entrance to many buildings involves climbing a number of steps.

Another issue relating to the building regulations is the design of housing estates. As a result of our economic progress, parking has become a problem due to households having two, three and sometimes four cars. It is difficult for an ambulance or a fire engine to get into many housing estates, particularly local authority estates, let alone reach somebody who is disabled. This is probably a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but roads should be wide enough to allow an ambulance to get into an estate. I encountered a situation recently where people had to lift cars out of the way in order that a medical service vehicle could get to a house.

Part 4 of the Bill deals with genetic testing, in respect of which there could be a difficulty with insurance. Recently, I heard about a young man of 23 or 24 years who had been refused insurance for a motorbike. He took the case to court and was awarded free insurance as compensation. The company had refused to give him a quote. Insurance companies are reluctant to insure people with even a minor disability or ailment. There must be a mechanism whereby people can have access to a mortgage. Many do not have such access due to medical reasons.

Part 5 deals with public service employment. There is a target of 3% of staff. I am unaware of whether Leinster House meets the 3% target. However, it should not simply be a case of filling 3% of vacancies with disabled people. If memory serves, many local authorities have not reached the 3% target. Where they do, it should not be the case that they consider their duty done. The 3% target should be reached but it should not prevent public bodies from employing additional people with disabilities, most of whom are every bit as capable as those who are deemed to be perfect.

Another letter I received from a constituent outlines five key demands. They include a national policy and appropriate funding levels for a countrywide programme of personal assistant services. Another demand is rights based legislation to be enacted but this is not provided for in the Bill. A significant number of people with disabilities are being forced into residential settings, although efforts are being made to address this. There is also a need to ringfence 5% of disability funds to provide services for people with disabilities in developing countries. We cannot meet the target of 0.7% of GNP in overseas development aid. As we cannot give a guarantee of funding to our own people with disabilities, I do not know how the Government envisages reaching that figure, although I appreciate some of the demands are severe.

Everyone in this House wants to see something done for people with disabilities. We are called to a relatively small number of meetings on the issue of disabilities. In recent years the representatives of people with disabilities have organised themselves well but time and attention have never been given to them. I am aware that we do not have infinite resources but it is time to put serious funding in place. On Committee Stage it will be important to see a figure.

There is an appeals mechanism in the Schedule to the Bill but if it is anything like the mechanism for people looking for the tax concession in the disabled driver's grant, it should be radically reformed. An appeals mechanism can only be successful if it is timely. My experience of appeals systems in the public service has been that they are cumbersome and not timely.

Deputy Stanton spoke about his experience with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, when the Minister accepted many of his amendments on Committee Stage of a previous Bill. Despite the fact that speakers on the Government back benches have supported this Bill, I know that privately they do not believe in it. They realise there are problems and would like to see a stronger commitment. I know the Minister of State would also. I ask him to go back to the Government and demand something concrete. If there is nothing concrete on assessment and the provision of funding, this Bill represents nothing but an aspiration.

See this speech in context