John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me. I welcome the opportunity to have my say in the Seanad on this particularly contentious and important legislation. In my time in this House, which is coming up to three years, I do not think I have received as much correspondence in electronic or old fashioned postal form on any other legislation. The correspondence is universally negative. I intend using my time to add my concerns to those which have been expressed already.

I regret the fact I cannot support the Disability Bill. A number of untruths and half-truths have been cast about in the debate in this Chamber and elsewhere in recent months. It is regrettable that for such long awaited legislation the Government has got it so badly wrong and has managed in the process to offend virtually every disability organisation in the country. That is a fair indication of the failure it has on its hands in terms of the Disability Bill.

There are a number of areas of concern. Senator Dooley referred to money but it does not all revolve around money. It appears to be the attitude continually from the Government parties — at least in this Chamber — that so many millions or billions are being spent on a certain problem so therefore people should go away and be happy. That is not the fundamental issue in this case.

Senator Fitzgerald made a good contribution but I have deep reservations about some of what he said. He spoiled it all in referring to the legitimate concerns disability groups have about rights-based legislation in saying they are looking for superior rights. They are not looking for superior rights. It is an insult to them to state in this Chamber that they are looking for superior rights when they are looking for equality, to which they are entitled. The proposed legislation will give it in part measure. They are entitled to expect more after years of consultation.

There are resource constraints and these have been highlighted. The Bill does not allow for any definitive allocations into the future with regard to resources. I have some reservations in that regard. The most important thing is that the Bill excludes more people than it includes. That line has been used by many people but it is true that many people who should be within the scope of the legislation are excluded.

The one area that exasperates me is the new level of bureaucracy that will be introduced. We will have a whole new array of officers. There will be adjudication officers, liaison officers and appeals officers. There is a strong case for amalgamating some of these positions. It will not be fruitful to spend extra money employing additional public servants to implement the legislation given that not enough is being spent on facilities and resources for people with disabilities. This is one of my main concerns about the legislation.

The e-mail from Cork, to which Senator Feighan referred, alluded to access to the courts. We all have a constitutional right to access to the courts if we have grievances. The Bill appears to fetter the right of access of people with disabilities to the courts in certain circumstances. This has not been addressed by any Government speakers in the House and, as far as I am aware, the other House. I look forward to the Minister of State's response to this matter.

It is most interesting to consider the views of the group set up by the Government to examine disability legislation, the Disability Legislation Consultation Group. It expressed its reservations and issued its ten key issues of concern regarding the Bill. Given that the Government set up the group, it should take on board its criticisms of the Bill when drafting amendments. It is all very well for me, an Opposition spokesperson, to express my opinion, but if change is to be made to the Bill it will need the support of the Government, which has a majority in both Houses. I urge Senators to ensure that their views are made known by voting against the Bill.

It is fundamental that the Bill provides for 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. We have heard talk down the years about poverty-proofing legislation and different initiatives by various Departments and bodies. In light of this, there is a strong case to be made for disability-proofing all activities by Government bodies and State agencies, including local authorities, with which people with disabilities may come into contact.

I will conclude because every other point I wanted to make has probably been made by other speakers. I regret that, after such a long consultation process and exhaustive debate, the Government has made such a hames of this issue. The people it is trying to help feel shut out and are completely opposed to the proposed legislation. I urge the Government to introduce the necessary amendments which would make this a Bill for which we could all vote.