Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. There has been much discussion of the legislation in recent weeks, both in this House and in the Dáil. There is little point in repeating all of it. I do not claim to be an expert on disability but those who possess such expertise are unhappy with the Bill. In its June newsletter, the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, quotes a statement made by the Disability Legislation Consultation Group, DLCG, which was issued on 5 May:

If this legislation goes through without major changes, the DLCG and its member organisations will be left with no option but to reassess our future relations and co-operation with the Government Departments and agencies. We may also consider a nationwide campaign to alert the general public to the failure of the Government to meet our legislative need.

This is a clear message to the Government that it has not taken the correct approach with this legislation from the experts in the area of disability.

Senator O'Meara has already read into the record the five issues highlighted by the DLCG and I will not repeat them. The executive chairperson of the Irish Wheelchair Association said, "While we recognise that some effort has been made by the Government, it is nevertheless clear that they have no real concept of how the flaws in this Bill will result in people with disabilities being treated as second-class citizens yet again." These are damning words. The Minister of State has taken his eye off the ball and the purpose of this discussion and future discussions on Committee and Report Stages must be to correct the flaws in the legislation. It is vital for the State and for persons with disabilities in particular that the Bill be amended. It is important legislation and there much that is positive in it. However, some elements must be improved.

One issue that concerns me is that the definition of disability is very restrictive and overly narrow. It is defined as "a substantial restriction in the capacity of the person to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reasons of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment". Senator Finucane spoke about language that ordinary people can understand and interpret. Is it possible that under this Bill a highly qualified person who is working in the State and who is blind could be deemed not to be disabled? What is meant by "in the State"? If an individual suffering from a disability has to go out of the State, is he or she entitled to a personal assistant? Can they go on holiday? What is the implication for the exchange of students under the ERASMUS programme? What about people with disabilities who want to attend football matches or sporting events? I look forward to clarification from the Minister.

It is worth reiterating that this is a medically driven Bill rather than a social and human rights Bill. Health and education assessments are dealt with but there is no clearly defined mention of housing or other needs. Services are provided only when practicable. Most people, including myself, have sought rights based legislation which would guarantee to people with a disability socio-economic rights, services and supports which are not available to ordinary members of the community. Some might ask why they should get these services. Why not? This is the core of the Bill and we seek the Minister's response.

Under the Bill every individual in the State could look for assessment if they so wished. Assessment is carried out without regard to the capacity or cost. We will need qualified personnel to carry out these assessments. Are such people available? Service will be provided where it is appropriate to meet the needs identified in the assessment, but the Bill will be worthless unless the clinical posts are filled by competent personnel. Senator Finucane referred to bureaucracy. One would hope that all the available funds would not be spent on administration and assessment services.

Senator Wilson and others have referred to multi-annual funding from 2006 to 2009. However, this amounts to a little over €200 million per annum. It is undoubtedly a significant input but is it enough? Can it provide what is required? We are aware of the capacity of this Government and its predecessor to waste money. The multi-annual roads programme started at €7 billion. We have spent €16 billion and many of the planned works have been removed from the programme. We learn that the DART service will not operate at the weekend because it has to be made wheelchair friendly. This is a clear indication of the lack of commitment to people with disabilities in times past.

The Government stated in 1997 that it would take cognisance of problems relating to disabilities. Killian, who is ten years old, is confined to a wheelchair. He travels from Tipperary to the children's hospital for major operations. His consultant has said it is necessary for him to have a wheelchair suitable for his size and age. What happens? Funding for needs and appliances in the mid-west region is not adequate —€15,000 a month. Killian has been waiting almost 12 months. If the go-ahead is given, it will take three months to get a wheelchair made. The earliest date Killian can look forward to is September. I could mention several similar cases.

This is a rich country. I appeal to the Minister to consider the call by people with disabilities and their representative groups, many of whom have left the consultative process, and give them what they want.