Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the decision to scrap the Green Paper on Disability Reform. My colleagues in Sinn Féin and I had grave reservations about it and had called for it to be binned. As Sinn Féin spokesperson on disability, along with its spokesperson on social protection, Deputy Ó Laoghaire, I met a wide range of disabled people and representatives of disability organisations to discuss the Green Paper. We did this because it was extremely important to hear directly the views of members of the disability community. I am aware the Minister said there was consultation but I am not sure there was consultation with the DPOs prior to the Green Paper’s design. DPOs should have been consulted early in the process and should have been involved in the codesign of any proposals. This would have allayed much of the fear and concern. It would have been a completely different paper or proposal had disabled people been involved.

There have been many complaints about the consultation after the issuing of the Green Paper. Many felt it was not very well organised and demonstrated a total lack of respect for people with disabilities. A concern was that many of the proposals in the Green Paper were based on the outdated medical model rather than the social or rights-based model that underpins the UNCRPD. This further highlights the necessity of ratifying the optional protocol to the UNCRPD. Until this happens, we will continue to hear the Government talk about implementing a rights-based framework for disability although it will in fact deliver further proposals and legislation informed by a medical-model perspective, as we have seen. I am aware the Minister referred in her speech to a new special Cabinet committee on disability. I hope it will meet the DPOs to discuss the issues that need to be addressed. If not, those concerned will be in contravention of the UNCRPD and it will not go anywhere. We all just want to see things progressed in this area.

We have the lowest level of employment among disabled people in the EU. We also have a very high cost of disability. Therefore, we need to see urgent systems change to ensure people do not fall further below the poverty line.

A major issue with the proposals contained in the Green Paper was that they wrongfully conflated the cost of disability with employment and the capacity to work. The paper viewed employment as a way of somehow reducing disability costs, although employment can often increase these costs. For example, there may be transport costs and you may have to find accommodation close to your place of work. You may have to purchase adaptive or assistive technology or employ personal assistants. All these are additional costs. Nowhere in the proposals was there any attempt to deal with the existing barriers that prevent disabled people from taking up employment. The vast majority of disabled people want to work. The issue is much more important than simply earning money because employment opens up social opportunities and gives a feeling of self-worth. The Green Paper does not consider the structural barriers that disabled people face in accessing employment. In this regard, I refer to educational opportunities, the lack of accessible transport, the inaccessibility of the built environment, the lack of accessible jobs, the failure to provide adequate supports and so on.

One of our local election candidates is a wheelchair user based in County Longford. She informed me she has never been in paid employment. She is a very capable young woman of roughly 30 years of age and she has always been in voluntary employment. She is deemed okay to do unpaid work but not paid work. We have to change the system because that is not fair.

Creating a link between the cost of disability and employment suggests people with disabilities are not trying hard enough to find employment. That leads to fears that the proposals were similar to those behind the British welfare reforms that negatively affected disabled people.

While the overall direction of the Green Paper was regressive, some of the proposals should be progressed. For example, we welcome the proposal for higher rates of disability payments. A single disability payment system, properly designed, could make sense as long as it is based on a social or rights-based model. For us, the priority is to ensure people with disabilities are protected from poverty and that we do not make other jurisdictions’ mistake of having punitive work assessments such as those used in Britain.

Many Deputies have raised the lack of supports for children with additional needs and autistic children. I agree completely. The situation in my constituency, Cavan–Monaghan, is dismal. Neither CDNT is functioning and there are huge staff shortages and huge waiting lists for assessments and services. Again, these must be addressed if we are to ensure our children progress and can live fully integrated lives.

See this speech in context