Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

Before the sos I made the point that we have an opportunity to make the Bill more rights-based. The key issue affecting parents when a disabled child is born is having a guarantee about the kind of services that child will need. In recent years we have seen tremendous advances made by disabled people as a result of new treatments and the intensity of one-to-one educational opportunities, etc. As these are citizens of a republic whose journey through life is made more difficult as a result of their condition, we have an obligation to ensure that the Bill takes a rights-based approach and that these people are given every opportunity to fulfil their lives.

As politicians, we should lead by example. Very few disabled people are involved in representative politics. I can think of Brian Crowley, MEP, and Anna Fenlon from our party in Wexford. Political parties have not done enough to bring people into the mainstream and make the environment accessible despite the significant advances that have been made. Having people like Brian Crowley, MEP, in politics shows how the issue can become mainstream. All political parties have a responsibility to do much more in terms of making our meetings more accessible and selecting candidates in that area to ensure that not only is the focus not lost but also that they fully contribute to decision making at the highest level.

I am sceptical of any Minister who proposes a multi-agency response. When a number of Departments are responsible for an issue, none of them takes responsibility. The issue is shunted from Department to Department. I believe in the notion of having a single Minister as the lead Minister in respect of answering questions in the other House and being the firm advocate for policy in an area. The Government's intentions were good when seven or eight Ministers came together to make the announcement last September. However, because of the difficulty of public administration we need one person to take responsibility. This was the case when the then Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Mervyn Taylor, took responsibility for the issue of equality and major advances in that area were made under both Governments between 1992 and 1997. A multi-agency or interdepartmental response means that nobody takes responsibility for anything.

While I have read the sections of the Bill that deal with the sectoral plans, without having one Cabinet Minister to take responsibility we will not make the kind of advance we should. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, who is present, works in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is logical to ask whether this is a health issue and that the Department of Health and Children should take the lead rather than the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In saying this, I do not denigrate in any way the work done by the Minister of State and his officials to date. However, we need to find a more appropriate location for the Bill in the relevant Department.

While the sectoral plans as outlined in sections 32 to 37 are fine in themselves, they are premised on resources being made available from the Department of Finance. As other colleagues have said, based on the historical record of that Department I would have concerns over the commitment that has been made. The Government does not want an open chequebook and citizens need to be confronted with the fundamental costs involved in genuinely addressing this area. However, if anything, we need an open chequebook policy as we are trying to make such rapid progress in a very short period to make improvements for people who have been utterly disenfranchised over the years. We will return to this matter on Committee Stage, but I am critical of the way in which many of the provisions of the Bill are so completely dependent on a financial envelope from the Department of Finance. A Cabinet Minister with full responsibility for this area could do considerably more than can be done by sharing responsibilities over several separate Departments, which is a recipe for disaster.

I agree with the notion of disability proofing, which should be applied in the Office of the Attorney General. Other similar proofing also takes place in that office. As legislators we need to continually proof all legislation to ensure that we do not place additional barriers on people with a disability. Recently the Taoiseach hinted at doing so in his discussions with the lobby groups in this area. If the Minister of State is prepared to move such an amendment in this House, he will find support. Ultimately, our obligation is to ensure that every opportunity is given to those with a disability. In this regard disability-proofing would be a minimum requirement. I hope the Minister of State will table a Committee Stage amendment in this respect. We clearly do not support the Bill as it stands since the Government has not adopted rights-based legislation. I once again remind colleagues that, when we decide on this on Second Stage and then Committee Stage, we cannot abdicate our responsibility to the President and ask her to decide for us whether the Bill is constitutional. We are obliged as Members of the Oireachtas not to pass laws repugnant to the Constitution. There is an absolute guarantee in Bunreacht na hÉireann regarding access to the courts. In addition, under the European Convention on Human Rights, there is an absolute requirement that courts make decisions in a timely fashion. We must be mindful of those two guarantees when we make our decision on Second Stage.