Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The UN convention moves towards a rights-based model for those with disabilities. We welcome the Bill as a step forward in the ratification of the convention. Disability campaigners have been seeking ratification for almost ten years. The only reason we are here now is because of their work which involved dragging successive reluctant Governments along the road.

While the Bill is to be welcomed, we do not feel it goes far enough. There is need to go further and reverse all austerity measures that have impacted on those with disabilities. To its shame, Ireland is the last of the 28 EU states to ratify the convention. This has been a disgrace and illustrates where disability lies in terms of Government priorities. It is not just the current Government that has delayed the process for ten years. The convention was signed in March 2007, when a Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democratic Government was in power, followed by almost four years of a Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government and over five years of a Labour Party and Fine Gael Party Government. All of the establishment parties have been hesitant about the rights of people with disabilities.

There have been savage cutbacks to services for people with disabilities. The Disability Federation of Ireland has illustrated that those with a disability are at a high risk of poverty. The at risk of poverty rate is 22.8% for disabled people. There is a 51.8% deprivation rate and the rate of involvement in the workforce is just 30%.

This is not just because of an absence of rights, but is the result of decisions by Governments to make targeted cuts that affect those with disabilities. There have been targeted attacks on people with disabilities by the Fianna Fáil, Green, Labour and Fine Gael parties which I will outline, but, before I do so, I point out that the general austerity measures have impacted disproportionately on those with disabilities. When the Government cuts transport services, people with disabilities are more affected than many other groups. When there are general cuts to education, health and housing, it is those with disabilities who often feel the pinch the most. The targeted cuts that were aimed at those with disabilities were extensive and, despite the so-called recovery, are far from restored.

Between 2008 and 2015, there was a €159.4 million cut to disability health services. The disability allowance, blind pension, invalidity pension and carer's allowance were cut by an average of 8% from 2009. The budget for 2017 provided for a delayed €5-a-week increase. In responding to the budget in October, the Anti-Austerity Alliance outlined that this was inadequate after years of cuts and poverty. The €5 increase does not go nearly far enough in terms of keeping in touch with the rise in the cost of living. It is calculated that the extra cost of living per week for a person with a disability is somewhere between €207 and €276.

Those with a disability have a right to access education but the funding to make it a reality is not in place. The number of special needs assistants was capped in 2011 and, although altered, is still in place. This shows that the Government is unwilling to take a rights-based approach. Instead of looking at each child's educational needs and providing for them, it prefers to give a minimal service and pass it off as meeting the right to education. A real right to education, like all rights, needs to be underwritten with finance.

The cuts made are too numerous to list in the limited time available but those with disabilities paying attention to the debate will be acutely aware of the 10% cut in the blind tax credit, the incapacitated child tax credit and the home carer tax credit; the change in the threshold for medical cards and the reduction in the number of discretionary cards granted; the 19% cut in the respite care grant in 2013 under the Labour Party; the cut to the household benefits package that massively hit the disabled; the 21% cut in the budget for the National Council for Special Education in 2011; and the 56% cut in housing adaptation grants in 2010, the restrictions on eligibility in 2014 and the very long assessment waiting times that many applicants for the grant experience. Since 2007, there has been a reduction of 2.5 million in home help hours. Thousands are waiting for occupational therapy and speech and language therapy and we have had the increase in the threshold for the drugs payment scheme while prescription charges for medical card holders have also risen significantly.

The UN convention is concerned with establishing a rights-based model as opposed to a medical model. The idea behind it is to recognise the rights of people and then to provide the resources to deliver on those rights. This should be welcomed and implemented fully. There are two reforms in the Bill that implement change, but they do not go far enough. This illustrates the general approach of the Government which is to go so far but then to stop short.

The Bill will change the Juries Act and change the blatant discrimination of disallowing all deaf people from serving on a jury. It will also end the current practice of disqualifying those with a mental illness. However, there should be careful attention to the wording as there should be a presumptive capacity to serve on a jury, as called for by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. The other reform I welcome is the removal of the "unsound mind" disqualification from being a public representative under the Electoral Act. However, the Act is not changed in a way that it introduces a rights-based approach to voters who are disabled. There should be an explicit right to secrecy of the ballot for blind people with, for example, returning officers being obliged to provide for stencils in polling stations. This would be a minor change, but it is not provided for in the Bill.

The major omission from the Bill relates to the deprivation of liberty. I refer to both actual deprivation and de facto deprivation of liberty which can take place in the State. The convention prohibits detention on the grounds of disability and requires a process outlined in law and a right of review and appeal. I understand that the Minister may bring forward amendments on Committee Stage to deal with this, but that is not acceptable. The purpose of the debate on Second Stage is to discuss the principles and identify problems with the approach of the Bill. Deprivation of liberty is a major issue that should be debated fully in this House and the discussion should not be curtailed by having it in a committee. It also means that Deputies have less time to advance amendments to what is being proposed.

Many people who have a mental illness feel coerced by the system that is now in place. There is a power imbalance for many patients, even voluntary patients, and others in residential care. The Bill should have explicit rights in place for people with disabilities and those with diminished capacity, such as the right to ongoing review of their situations, independent oversight of deprivation of liberty and access to redress.

The Bill does not go far enough in terms of the provisions on reasonable accommodation, which has disappointed many of those with a disability. At present, there is a get-out clause for service providers. If they can show that there is a cost other than a nominal one with it, they can get away with not providing access to those with a disability. The Bill strengthens the position vis-à-vis the public sector and in important areas such as the position of financial institutions, but it remains weak vis-à-visthe private sector. There should be a far stronger wording that gives rights to those with disabilities to access services. Large private operators should be obliged by law to provide access to their services. There should, of course, be some consideration for the size of the provider, as there is a difference between a small family-owned corner shop and a large retail outlet or supermarket. However, if the Government contends there are constitutional issues with such provisions, we should have a referendum to secure these rights to reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities.

The Anti-Austerity Alliance welcomes the Bill but we would like to see its provisions strengthened. Those campaigning for rights for people with disabilities should increase their campaign work in the crucial weeks ahead, while the Bill is going through the various Stages, in order to secure the strongest possible Bill from what is a hesitant Government that is accustomed to delay on the issue of rights for people with disabilities.

See this speech in context