John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

That is how the matter is disposed of. Another way is to suggest that the Bill contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. Once again, the Attorney General would not advise the Government to initiate legislation and pilot it through these Houses if he considered it a breach of the convention. The same story applies; it is a case of legal challenge. If people believe it is a breach, they have recourse to the courts.

The third, often repeated claim regarding the Bill is that it does not make it clear that services identified in the assessment of need for an individual must be provided within a reasonable and agreed period. In that context, I refer to sections 10 and 11, which provide that each person found to need disability-related services should be given a service statement setting out the health and educational services that can be provided. The service statement will set out the period within which those services will be provided, where appropriate.

There are other points that need to be made, one of which concerns access. We have not gone nearly far enough regarding access for people with physical disabilities. In my own county of Kildare, the desk at the health board was two or three floors up in a building with a restricted lift; that is just not good enough. A health centre was built without specific access for people in wheelchairs; that is not good enough. There are swimming pool and sports facilities that people cannot access; that is not good enough.

When I went to Luxembourg recently I was very taken by the fact that in one of the large public buildings I visited, there were wheelchairs inside the door. In other words, if someone arrived by car and needed a wheelchair, he or she would have it. That should be standard practice in Departments. We simply do not think about how it is to be restricted in sight or by having to use a wheelchair. In my local community in Newbridge, we have a very active access group. Some time ago it put public representatives in wheelchairs and let them try to get around the town, but it was just impossible.

County councils make a great play of installing ramps and making footpaths accessible, but then the roads team comes along and carries out repairs that make it impossible to get onto the footpath. That is just not good enough these days, and we must have some regard to that practice.

Senator Terry was correct in her comments on building regulations. There was a fair amount of hope in disability circles when the Part M regulations were introduced that many problems would be solved. It is quite apparent from some of the buildings that have been built since that the regulations are not being implemented as they should be.

I am glad the Bill has been amended to make the literature easy to read. Legislation is by definition complex. It has to be so, since there is no alternative. Having said that, if one looks at some of the British legislation from the 1890s, one sees they were models of clarity in their use of language. We still need legislation that is fairly complex, but there should be some "translation service" to make it readily accessible to the ordinary citizen, particularly those with intellectual disabilities or even visual impairment, allowing them to read it easily.

The 3% employment target is a matter of concern, and we must examine it. In county councils and local authorities there are great differences in the progress that has been made. It is not a very high threshold, and every Department and local authority should reach the mark for providing employment to people with disabilities. We have all met people who are eminently employable but have great difficulties in securing employment. On the other hand, we have such bodies as Care, which looks after people with intellectual disabilities in Kildare. It has been extremely successful in placing some of its clients in local communities and getting them jobs in shops and businesses. These are more fulfilling and fruitful jobs than those they had in some of the sheltered workshops which, although they did a good job at the time, are not an ideal situation now.

We have made significant progress with this legislation. The Bill is badly needed and represents a vast improvement over the system that currently obtains. Despite that, it is not perfect, but if we wait for perfect legislation, nothing will get done, since the current systems will persist ad infinitum. The Bill improves the situation for disabled people, which is what legislation should do. The Minister has shown himself quite open, as he already did in the Dáil and, I am sure, will do so again.

Where appropriate amendments must be made, he will make them. Judging from some of the literature we have received, one would think nothing had been done in the Dáil, yet there was a series of beneficial amendments. As I said at the start of this debate, I had serious reservations about this Bill, fewer after what happened in the Dáil, and fewer still after hearing the Minister of State speak yesterday. The Bill provides a legislative basis for the individual assessment of service delivery that is considerably more advanced than those in many other jurisdictions, something of which we should not lose sight.

As I said, the legislation is only part of the story. We have heard a great deal about passing legislation which does not necessarily improve things. We need the will to do it. I am confident the will is there and applies across all sections of the two Houses to ensure people with disabilities have proper facilities, a good quality of life, and rights that improve their situation. This Bill has been introduced after an extensive period of consultation, debate and amendment. It provides a legislative basis for individual assessment of service delivery that puts Ireland in a position that will no doubt be studied and emulated abroad. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement, and as such I welcome the Bill.