Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The primary purpose of the Bill is to address the remaining legislative barriers to Ireland's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Bill has been widely accepted. It is quite a straightforward Bill that deals with the issue of capacity to serve as a juror, removes references to "unsound mind" for persons standing for election, provides for the Department of Justice and Equality to be a focal point for implementation of the convention and deals with, among others, the issues of reasonable accommodation costs and the deprivation of liberty. These relatively achievable goals are not without problems, however. I will deal with them in more detail, but I first wish to make the point that the Government has had ten years to get the drafting and consultative process right for the Bill. This is why I find it difficult to understand how it is that the Bill is still incomplete, with the Government proposing to introduce a swathe of amendments on Committee Stage.

Did we not see this previously when Report Stage amendments to the rent legislation introduced by the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, rendered the Bill unrecognisable? Most worryingly, however, was that this left a democratic deficit in the Dáil because many Members could not analyse or decipher the Bill before it was pushed through the House and into law.

Why has it taken ten years to introduce such a mediocre Bill? Last month, during Leaders' Questions, I raised the personal hardship caused by the failure to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for people such as Frank Larkin, a disability activist in County Donegal. I read out Mr. Larkin's letter which highlighted the frustration he has experienced during this long wait. People such as Frank Larkin deserve nothing less than completed, tightly written legislation which ties together all the loose ends blocking the process of ratification.

I will repeat some of the concerns about the Bill expressed by many disability advocacy groups. One curious change was the removal of the word "equality" from the original general scheme. The word should be reinstated, as advised by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, to recognise the wide-ranging aspects of the UN convention, including the protection of transgender individuals from discrimination.

While the Bill aims to fix most of the outstanding obstacles to the ratification of the convention, many issues are not addressed and the Bill is, as I stated, incomplete. Amendments dealing with Article 14 of the convention, which upholds a person's right not to be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, will not be introduced until Committee Stage. How will those living with disabilities be able to give their perspective on the legislation if it remains so incomplete? What are the reasons for the delay in publishing these amendments? Is it to allow the Minister of State to argue that he is doing something, however half-hearted? The Government needs to come clean on any reservations it may have on disability legislation in general.

Some discriminatory language persists in legislation and this Bill presented the Government with an opportunity to repeal or replace outdated and offensive terminology. The term "of unsound mind" was used as recently as 2014 in the Companies Act. The Bill was supposed to amend such terms across all legislation but this has not been done. Will the Minister of State make a commitment to remove discriminatory language from our legislation in the near future to coincide with the ratification and implementation of the UN convention? I ask him to respond before we conclude the Second Stage debate.

The Bill does not address the outstanding issue of a person being found in a District Court to be unfit to plead guilty because he or she lacks decision-making capacity and the case is referred to a higher court with a harsher sentencing regime. In 2010, the High Court found that this caused a constitutional issue for people with disabilities who become subject to a harsher sentencing regime purely because they have a disability. This matter has not been resolved in the Bill. Why has it not been addressed?

The Bill recognises that people who are deaf should not be excluded from participation in a jury simply because they need the support of an Irish Sign Language interpreter. Reasonable accommodation should also be extended to people with other disabilities. Section 2(b) amends a provision in the Juries Act 1976 on ineligible persons by relating ineligibility to capacity rather than disability. This does not go far enough. It would be more appropriate to create a system in which a person would be ineligible for jury duty if he or she did not, in the opinion of the court, have the ability to perform the functions required of a jury following the provision of reasonable accommodation.

It will be some time before Ireland ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. For example, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 has not yet been commenced. On 26 January, the Minister of State suggested in the Chamber that the Act would need to be commenced before ratification of the UN convention could proceed. This is a cause of concern because a great deal of work must be done to prepare for this new, wide-ranging legislation which fundamentally reforms how people are supported to make decisions.

While oversight of the implementation of the UN convention is given to the Department of Justice and Equality, this has not been placed on a statutory footing. Furthermore, the convention recommends that the focal point be placed at the heart of government such as in the prime minister's office or with the cabinet - in Ireland's case, the Department of the Taoiseach - to ensure cross-departmental collaboration and leadership in meeting the task. It is imperative that the remit of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is expanded to include a truly independent capacity with a clear link to the designation of the commission as the independent mechanism under Article 33 of the convention. The Bill does not explicitly define the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality and Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission beyond their administrative duties. Given that this issue could be easily addressed, I wonder why the Bill does not provide for this change and other small but important changes to legislation.

The significant role of people with disabilities in the monitoring and evaluation process of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities cannot be understated. Not only is this role of vital importance, but it is a requirement in the convention. Article 33.3, which sets out the requirement to involve people with a disability in the monitoring process, states: "Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process." The Minister of State must outline how those with lived experience will be resourced and facilitated to play a crucial role in monitoring the implementation of the UN convention and will continue to be key constituents in the monitoring of the convention in future. This is of vital importance.

Overall, I am concerned that the Bill is incomplete and may have been published prematurely to make it appear the Government has been doing something on the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am also concerned that, with amendments to be made on Committee State, we may wait for a long time for the Bill to progress and lose at least another year before ratification can begin. After ten years of waiting, how does the Minister of State justify allowing more time to elapse before the proper ratification and implementation of the UN convention takes place?

This debate presents the Minister of State with an opportunity to speak out on the real reasons ratification has been slow. Cost has always been the key issue for the Fine Gael Party. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have never factored in the physical, financial and emotional costs placed on people with disabilities by the burden imposed on them by the failure to ratify the UN convention. It is time the Government factored in these types of costs and recognised that ratification of this vitally important convention will benefit all citizens as it would further emphasise the principle of equality.

See this speech in context