Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendmentNo. 98:

In page 17, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(a) the denial of a right to an assessment of need;".

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the grounds on which a person with a disability can lodge a complaint to a complaints officer to include cases where the former has been denied a right to an assessment of need. This goes further than the provision of the existing paragraph (a) which allows an appeal on the basis that the assessment officer has determined that a person does not have a disability.

This amendment goes to the heart of one of the key demands of the disability legislation consultation group, DLCG, for a clear and unequivocal right to an assessment of need. The DLCG has whittled down its core demands to only five, of which this is one. Against our hopes and the Government's promises, this legislation does not guarantee much to those with disabilities. It does not even guarantee an assessment of need, particularly in view of the restrictive definition of disability for which the Government has opted against the advice of the Opposition, the DLCG, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Authority and others. It is disgraceful that Opposition amendments which sought to remedy that failing and to bring the definition into line with that under the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act 1998 have been disallowed and refused even the opportunity for discussion.

Amendment No. 98 goes to the heart of our contention and the consensus outside the immediate Government circle that the Bill should be rights-based even if only in this one aspect. Although he has refused to ring-fence funding for disability-specific services or to enshrine in law the principle of progressivity in regard to the meeting of an unmet need for those with disabilities, I urge the Minister of State at least make to the assessment rights-based by accepting this amendment. This is one of the five key demands of the protestors who will gather at the gates of Leinster House at the conclusion of this debate.

The Minister of State should take the opportunity to accept this amendment so that those protestors can be told that he listened on at least one of the five issues. If he accepts this minor but important change, and the associated provisions contained in amendments Nos. 99, 103 and 104, we can reassure the many who will be gathered that the Minister of State is willing to accept one of their vital demands. If not, I will call a vote on this amendment and the record will show how the Government Deputies voted.

I support amendments Nos. 99, 103 and 104. They provide that a person may challenge the contents of the assessment report and service statement. Without such a right to challenge inadequate assessments or service statements, the provisions in the remainder of the section will be virtually meaningless to persons with disabilities. I also support these amendments in lieu of my amendment No. 146 which was disallowed. This amendment sought to delete the notorious section 20 which undermines any limited rights this legislation provides for those with disabilities and protects the Government from liability and responsibility to provide services. Section 20 prohibits appeal to a court and the High Court in particular except on a point of law. I am not confident that such a provision is constitutional or that it will survive scrutiny by the President. I hope this Bill, when passed, will be impaled on that legislative sword. I have no doubt that, if it survives this Stage and the Seanad, this section will continue to be subject to challenges by those with disabilities and their advocacy groups. I urge the Minister of State to adopt this amendment.

See this speech in context