Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

As the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and almost half the Cabinet were in attendance at the launch of the Disability Bill, I felt genuinely that the Government at last meant business on a most important issue. Surely, it could not be just another orchestrated PR event to give false hope to people with disabilities and their families. They say a leopard never changes its spots. Despite some purgatory in Inchydoney and an attempt to reverse some of the cuts in last year's budget, the Government could not resist a stroke. As a result, the most vulnerable sections of the community must suffer disappointment having been promised so much with such fanfare just a short time ago in September 2004. The people who wrote the speeches the Taoiseach and Tánaiste made at the launch could not have read the Bill as their words bore no resemblance to those outlining its provisions.

I was very disappointed by the Government guillotine on the debate on the Bill in the Dáil, as a result of which many amendments were not dealt with. It is not the way to behave in a parliamentary democracy and suggests an arrogance and complacency of which the public is only too well aware at this stage. The Minister of State said he believed he was introducing good legislation. While I do not suggest for a moment that some of the Bill's sections are not worthwhile, the Government seems to think it has a monopoly on wisdom in this area and is unwilling to accept contrary views from the Opposition benches or organisations representing people with disabilities.

In recent correspondence with all Oireachtas Members, the Disability Federation of Ireland put forward five fundamental issues which remain to be addressed. First, there must be a clear and unequivocal right to an assessment of need which is not resource dependent. Second, the services identified in the assessment of need for an individual must be provided within a reasonable and agreed timeframe. Third, the Bill must provide for clear protection of disability specific resources. Fourth, the provision regarding sectoral plans must take account of the wider needs of people with disabilities. Fifth, each Department with relevant services must provide a sectoral plan and the Government must place a clear statutory duty on all Departments and public bodies to include people with disabilities in their plans and services, with appropriate monitoring and accountability.

If we could make progress on these five points, this debate would be meaningful. It would improve the Bill significantly and lay the foundation for legislation which would genuinely give hope to people with disabilities and their families. It would also prove that the Oireachtas genuinely cares about disabled people and is prepared to take the necessary action which would improve their quality of life.

If the Government should continue with its stonewalling tactics and state that there is no possibility of altering this flawed legislation, it will confirm that it has no interest in or intention of listening to people with disabilities. I welcome what the Minister of State said in his opening remarks last night about the five points to which I alluded. He said that people with disabilities and the DLCG met with the Taoiseach. However, the responses made to the five points were very milk and water ones. I hope the promised Government amendments in this regard will be stronger than was suggested by the Minister of State last night and will give teeth to what has been sought in the five points.

I am pleased the Progressive Democrats spoke on the Bill. I welcome Senator Dardis's response. The party made little or no contribution on this important issue in the other House.

For whom are public services — financed by taxes — designed? Are they for everyone or only those people who fit the narrow definition of what might be termed the "norm", those who fit into the mould? How this Bill is enacted will dictate what kind of society this is and how real is our commitment to inclusiveness. I am convinced the vast majority of people believe in empowering people with disabilities and providing the necessary resources to help them and their families have a better quality of life. This is what we should be united in providing through legislation. Sadly, the Bill excludes rather than includes the very people it would purport to protect.

I read the Bill from beginning to end and the very complex language used made it difficult to understand. This point was also made by other speakers. In the past we often commented on the need for European legislation and treaties to use plain English but the language used in this Bill surpasses the bureaucratic speak of the EU itself. How are parents and ordinary people expected to understand sections of the Bill, when legal experts are on record as finding it difficult?

It is the Government's duty and moral responsibility to ensure the delivery of quality services and remove the barriers that hamper full participation in society. We are prepared to engage in meaningful debate to ensure this legislation will provide the necessary support and quality services. However, the Minister of State must respond in kind, which has not been the case to date. We look forward to this on Committee Stage.

If we lived in a country with no Exchequer surplus and an economy that was floundering, then some could say — without justification — that the Government could not afford accessible housing or respite and residential care for people with disabilities. However, this is not the case. The country is awash with money. The wealthiest people in the country avoid paying any taxes while at the same time elderly parents of children with disabilities worry and wonder what will happen to their children when they die. Many families of people with disabilities struggle. They are at risk of poverty and are under severe emotional and physical stress. For far too long we have consigned people with disabilities to a land that cannot afford or value them. It is time for this attitude to change. The barriers we place in front of people and the attitudes we have to their participation are more disabling than any impairments they may have.

The right to assessment is referred to more than once in the Bill, which I welcome, but it is open to interpretation whether resource constraints will curtail the so-called right to assessment on which the Government appears to place such emphasis. Even if resources are provided for assessment, the services are dependent on the availability of resources and, therefore, there is no obligation to provide these services within a reasonable and agreed timeframe.

I question the process, as outlined in the Bill, for the qualification and appointment of assessment officers by the Health Service Executive. Has any research been undertaken to provide information on how many assessment officers will be required? If designated funds are not provided to the HSE to appoint these officers, the number of assessments could be constrained. Is there a plan in place for the appointment of assessment officers and is there a sufficient number of qualified people in the State to become assessment officers? These questions deserve straight answers. We are at risk of placing another layer of bureaucracy into the process, which may take from the actual delivery of services.

When and if an assessment of needs is carried out, the last thing a person wants to hear at that stage is that no resources are available to carry out the work. This would add insult to injury. Nobody expects all the work to be completed immediately following the assessment but at least people should be entitled to a timeframe and a reasonable estimate as to when the necessary service would be provided.

Section 16 deals with appeals officers. Perhaps it would it be better if these officers were to be appointed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform rather that the Department of Health and Children. It is important that the appeals process would be seen as an independent one and the HSE and the Department of Health and Children are two sides of the one coin.

Section 36, which deals with the sectoral plan of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, provides that it shall contain information concerning measures to be taken to ensure compliance with Part M of the building regulations 1997. It is an indictment of the Government since 1997 that it is looking at measures to be taken to ensure compliance with Part M. This sums up the priority that the parties in Government have assigned to people with disabilities and their families. Senator Tuffy, Senator Dardis and others also referred to this point. It is evident that the regulations are not being adhered to, which is outrageous given that it is now 2005.

The basis on which this Bill was formulated was to take the courts out of the equation rather than address the needs of people with disabilities. We all have similar human rights and people with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else but they cannot exercise their rights and opportunities because of the obstacles put in their way. The Bill as it stands, will do nothing to remove these obstacles.