Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

That would be all I need.

I thank the Deputies for and commend them on their valuable contributions. This is a matter on which we have overall agreement. There was a strong focus on the rights of the person with a disability. I recognise the valuable and constructive ideas put forward by Deputies Murphy O'Mahony, Breathnach, Eugene Murphy and Boyd Barrett. I also welcome Senator John Dolan, who is involved with the Disability Federation of Ireland.

Let me first clear the decks on a number of issues. I will respond in more detail in respect of them on Committee Stage. First, on the lack of consultation, since I took over as Minister of State I have met over 4,500 people, including disabled individuals, voluntary groups, professional groups and service providers. I have an open door and, if there is anybody I did not meet, my door is still open. Let us get that clear. There is no question of me not being involved in consultation. I see myself as a Minister of State who listens. When I get constructive ideas, as I did in the past few days, it is important that I listen to them. We will return to each of these issues on Committee Stage, when I will be able to put detailed, point-by-point responses on the record.

I want to deal with a number of the key matters that have been raised. I would have preferred to include all the necessary provisions in the Bill, as published, but I want to get things moving. It was always the intention, even when the general scheme was approved by the previous Government, that the deprivation of liberty provisions would be advanced by means of Committee Stage amendments. This was, and is, a simple acknowledgement of the complexity and importance of the issue. However, these heads will be published as soon as they are finalised and before the Office of the Attorney General settles the final detail of the text. The heads will be presented to the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, which, as Deputy Murphy O'Mahony suggested, will be free to conduct hearings on this specific part of the Bill, if it so wishes. Let us have hearings if Members want them. There will be time for analysis and commentary, as requested by Deputy Murphy O'Mahony, on this aspect by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission or disability interests in advance of Committee Stage. Those are some of the issues I am taking on board before we get into the nitty-gritty.

In regard to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission’s role, the view in the Department and in the Attorney General’s office is that we already have the independent mechanism that is required for this convention, namely, the commission itself. The commission is fully compliant with the Paris Principles and it is simply a question of giving it a specific disability function. That function should be a wide one and it need not mention the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities specifically. The form of words used in the Bill is broad enough to cover this and any other future international instrument that may be relevant.

During the debate, several Deputies asked about the involvement of persons with disabilities in monitoring the conventions. Sections 3 and 6 of the Bill set out the monitoring process as envisaged by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, supported by the National Disability Authority, will carry out this role. If Deputies look closely, they will see that the Bill provides for the establishment of an advisory committee and that at least half of the members should have, or have had, a disability. The facilitation of the participation of all members of the committee will be ensured by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. A number of Deputies mentioned the constitutional difficulty in regard to reasonable accommodation. The details are set out in the roadmap published in October 2015. We have gone as far as we can, while keeping within the interpretation of the Constitution delivered by the Supreme Court.

If the proposed anti-discrimination directive published in 2008 by the European Commission is adopted, we will be bound by that and can apply, across the board, the "not exceeding a disproportionate burden" standard contained in the UN convention. In the meantime, the House cannot recommend provisions for the Bill that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decision hinged on the protection of private property rights catered for in the Constitution. The Deputies opposite and I might wish for a different interpretation but, in our system, the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and the other branches of Government - the Executive arm and the Oireachtas - must accept that. For those who quoted from the analysis in the submission of the Disability Law Centre in Galway, they might ask the centre how exactly it is that a Supreme Court decision on private property rights is overturned by High Court decisions on entirely different issues.

A number of Deputies mentioned our proposed declarations in respect of Article 12 and Article 14. I want to make it clear that we fully accept and will conform to both of these articles. The problem arises due to the misinterpretation of said articles, in an extremist way, by the UN committee, which we and other countries, such as Australia, Norway and Canada, cannot accept as a valid interpretation of the convention. I look forward to setting out a detailed explanation in respect of this point on Committee Stage. Essentially, the committee is of the view that persons with mental illness or intellectual disability who commit criminal acts should be treated as criminals. Our law does not allow a person to be found guilty of a crime if that person does not have the capacity to understand that the act was wrong. Instead, the person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity and, if appropriate and necessary, detained for treatment. This approach is much more humane and in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities than the quite strange misinterpretation put forward by the UN committee.

I want to mention juries, an issue raised by Deputies Pringle and Murphy O'Mahony. We are proposing to remove inappropriate restrictions on eligibility to serve on a jury. I am willing to look at issues in regard to reasonable accommodation again. However, let me be clear that there are competing constitutional rights here. The right to a fair trial takes precedence over the right of any person, with a disability or not, to be eligible to serve on a jury. That is the way it has to be and that is what we need to keep in mind.

Deputies Brady, Martin Kenny, O'Brien and others made the point that other countries ratify without changing their legislation and asked why we cannot do the same. They raise a very important issue on which people have different views, and even within Government there are different opinions. I am not in the business of making meaningless gestures. I want this to be fully compliant with the UN convention and the Government is fully behind me on that, as is the Opposition, which is fantastic and a very important help to me.

Another issue raised is that the word "equality" needs to be included in the Title. I accept that point very strongly and I will ask the Attorney General to ensure we that fix this on Committee Stage. I can confirm that we will remove references to unsound mind where these remain in Acts that are still in operation. The Companies Act is being addressed separately by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and will be amended. These are important issues.

I want to raise some final points on consultation. I emphasise that if I left out somebody, my door is open and I am ready to talk. We have had genuine consultation with disability interests on the development of the new national disability inclusion strategy and this ratification process. The Department of Justice and Equality held two rounds of public meetings in Dublin, Cork, and Tullamore, at which issues in regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the wider disability strategy were discussed. The Disability Stakeholders Group and the national steering committee for the strategy, which I chair, also provided opportunities for input by disability interests. Therefore, we have had consultation but, if anyone has been excluded, we will definitely listen to them. As noted earlier, the justice committee has the authority to bring them in on Committee Stage.

I am looking at putting the word "equality" back into that legislation. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien was one of the first people to mention it during the debate. I am a listening Minister and I look forward to constructive ideas.

I conclude by thanking all the Deputies for their contributions. I hope to return on Committee Stage soon. There is a lot of work to be done, particularly in respect of the deprivation of liberty. There will be no delay as far I am concerned. I was annoyed by the way events last week in the Dáil meant that Second Stage of this Bill was delayed until this week. It would be wrong to underestimate what remains to be done. We can resume our examination of the Bill on Committee Stage. In response to Deputy Jonathan O'Brien's question during the previous debate, we will resume when we have all the remaining pieces of the Bill available and when we have adequate time to consider them, including adequate time for Deputies to consult with stakeholders. I will take on board any views. If any particular group has contacted Deputies in recent weeks that we might have left out by accident, the door is open and I will meet it. I have met many groups. I was criticised by some Deputies. When I visited the Centre for Independent Living in Galway before Christmas, a meeting that was attended by 300 people, they told me that they knew I was under pressure to ratify the UN convention but that I should bring in a strong Bill and that if it took time to do it properly, I should take that time rather than bring in a flawed Bill. That was the advice I got from them. I was disappointed by the delay. I set myself a target of the end of December 2016 but we are back in business and, hopefully, we will complete Second Stage today.

See this speech in context