Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Solidarity-People Before Profit for tabling this really welcome motion. The Government's decision to scrap the Green Paper on Disability Reform last week was the right thing to do but it should never have been presented in the first place. It took much too long to scrap it. Activists in this area deserve much praise for the pressure they exerted on the Government. The truth of the matter is that the Government has failed to address the systemic issues facing the disabled community. In particular, I acknowledge my colleague, Dublin city councillor Declan Meenagh, who has been a steadfast voice advocating for the abolition and scrapping of the Green Paper.

Frankly, what the Government was proposing was absolutely preposterous. It is quite clear that the paper was published with little or no consultation with disabled people and it was rightly opposed by a wide range of people and organisations. As this motion rightly points out, the foundation of the Green Paper was based on a flawed idea that it is a straightforward process to assess people with disabilities. If this plan had ever come to fruition, many disabled people would have been in a very difficult situation, with invisible and episodic disabilities undoubtedly facing particularly huge challenges. There is certainly no evidence that such a proposal would have done anything to lift disabled people out of poverty. Indeed, the scope of the Green Paper itself was much too narrow. The paper did not include proposals to remove barriers to employment, such as improving workplace accessibility or disability equality training for employers and did not address the cost of disability issue in any coherent manner. It did not put any obligations on employers in this regard despite Ireland having very weak legal obligations on workplace accessibility.

By scrapping the Green Paper, the Government has finally admitted that it was a half-baked proposal, pulled together without proper consideration. Unfortunately, this speaks to how people with disabilities in this country have long been failed. The current system of disability support is not working. There is no denying that but the concept of a tiered system of supports is simply egregious. We have urged the Department to focus on bringing in a cost of disability payment, which was included in our costed alternative budget and those of other parties in opposition.

We provided allocated funding of €226 million for this purpose. We were consistent in our budget in addressing a multitude of areas on disability which have thus far seen little or no action from the Government. We would increase the income disregard for disability allowance to fund extra places in EmployAbility to support disabled people into the workplace, and provide extra places on the disability wage subsidy scheme, as well as reforming the scheme itself. We would work to remove the means test for carer's allowance, which is the next big challenge we believe needs to be faced with urgency in terms of people who are caring for disabled people.

On disability services themselves, the Government needs to explain why it has not in any significant way moved to address the large unmet demand in disability services as outlined in its disability capacity review. In our alternative budget, we costed and committed to meeting this demand, allocating a total of €217 million in funding for increased services to cover residential care day services, personal assistant hours, home support, respite care and therapy services, including resourcing children's disability network teams. Instead what we got from the Government was a recruitment freeze in the HSE, which has further exacerbated the already challenged services and put further pressure on the services that have not received the funding or resources they need.

Every aspect of our health service faces large waiting lists, from seeing specialists to even getting a GP appointment. Last year, 10,000 children waited more than 12 months to see a member of a CDNT team. The stress and anxiety caused to children and young people and to their families and disabled people is incredible. Every time the recruitment embargo is brought up by the Opposition it is met with the unbelievable response from the Government that the embargo does not exist and the Government has hired too many people. It has not. In Swords, the town where I live, we do not have a social worker at present and we have not for more than a year. We are the largest town in Ireland that does not have a primary care centre, a rail link or a public swimming pool. We are also the largest town in Ireland that does not have a social worker. This is one of the many examples of how the recruitment embargo impacts the most vulnerable in society and needs to end ASAP.

Last year I and many others stood with families outside Leinster House and had meetings in Government Buildings with people with intellectual disabilities who were protesting over the lack of day services. These individuals were school leavers in the north Dublin area. They had been referred to St. Michael's House through the HSE. They had all attended the organisation's school for children with additional needs and had expected to use the adult day services. However, due to a combination of staff shortages and the resources provided to the organisation, they were unable to get places. Will the Government assure us we will not see a similar scene this year? We need a commitment from the Government that individuals with additional needs will not be left behind as they leave children's services and enter adult services.

We have come a long distance in the past 20 or 30 years in terms of how society values and treats people with disabilities. However, this has not been matched by the Government. The data is there to support this. Disabled people are twice as likely to be homeless. They are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed, with Ireland having the highest level of unemployment among disabled people in the European Union due to lack of supports. They are twice as likely to leave school early and more likely to suffer further ill-health.

I want to speak on the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In 2007 the State signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratifying the convention in 2018. It is yet to ratify the optional protocol. We want to see the optional protocol ratified now. I welcome the announcement by the Minister and the Minister of State that we are to accelerate the ratification of the optional protocol of the UNCRPD. The House needs to be updated on this work at the earliest possible opportunity. We have rightfully come under scrutiny at UN level due to what can only be seen as a resistance to ratifying the protocol. It is important at international level that we give people who think their rights have been violated under the convention a recourse outside of this country. What concerns me and many activists on this issue is the idea that the reason we have not seen fit to ratify the protocol is because the Government does not feel the care the State provides would meet the rights of persons with disabilities. If anything, this is the reason we need to see positive action on this. It is the State's job to meet these requirements. It is the State's responsibility. It should not be the responsibility of those who deserve to have their rights met to wait for the State to catch up.

I recognise the Minister and the Minister of State have spoken about the due diligence needed in agreeing any supranational review. I understand this is important but other countries in Europe, as well as the US, Australia and New Zealand, ratified the protocol soon after they ratified the UNCRPD. It does not make sense that we are an exception to this. We need to see action on it, and soon, before the lifetime of the Government expires. The Government can be doing more for disabled people and I urge it to take action to increase funding for our disability services in order that no person is left behind.

See this speech in context