Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, to the House. With regard to the comments made by Senator John Paul Phelan, I have spoken to many people in the disability sector and have noted that while they would like the legislation to go further, they all acknowledge, in a fairly objective way, that it is a very significant contribution to improving the lot of those who are disabled. In my eight years as a Member of this House, I have not witnessed such extensive engagement by the Government or so much consultation on legislation as I have witnessed in respect of this Bill. It is unprecedented and it is reflected in the Bill.

There are many people who should be complimented. Colleagues have acknowledged the significant contribution made by former Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, who worked in uncharted territory. It is a testimony to her commitment that probably 70% to 80% of the provisions in her original Bill are now included in the one before the House. It is only fair to acknowledge this because, as has been said, the rights issue that emerged might have swamped and set aside much of the good that was intended to accrue from her Bill. Her successor, the former Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, advanced and enhanced the legislation, as has the current Minister of State with responsibility in this area, Deputy Fahey. They all deserve to be complimented, as do the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, who took a direct personal interest in ensuring the Bill reflected the Government's views on disability. The area of disability has been in focus and we have seen significant improvements, particularly in recent years, but more needs to be done.

Any debate on this topic must also recognise the tremendous contribution that has been made by the voluntary sector regarding disability. Those who serve the physically and mentally challenged do a tremendous job. It must be acknowledged that the Disability Legislation Consultation Group played a pivotal role in the drafting of the Bill.

Some contributions to this debate seemed to suggest this legislation was formulated in isolation. However, it is only one element of the national disability strategy. It is probably worth reminding ourselves that this strategy is being rolled out against a background of a very strong employment equality and equal status legislation. This legislation is among the most advanced in Europe. Under the Employment Equality Act 1998, the Equal Status Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2004, people who are discriminated against on the grounds of disability, or any one of eight other grounds, have a statutory right of redress. The bodies that support this right are the Equality Authority and the Equality Tribunal. Experience indicates that both bodies are much used and well recognised.

The aforementioned legislation is recent and therefore the charge that the Government is not very mindful and absolutely committed to making significant and overdue improvements in this area is without foundation. I could also refer to the special needs legislation, which represents a major and significant advance in this area.

Mention has been made of the commitment made in terms of expenditure. The litmus test of any commitment to policy is to determine whether the necessary resources have been provided to achieve its objective. We have seen a dramatic 250% increase in disability funding since 1997, at which time €0.8 billion was allocated. Significantly, this has risen to €2.9 billion this year. The sector itself readily and fairly acknowledges the difference this increase has made.

The sectoral plans of the key Departments offer tremendous potential to make the required improvements. We saw evidence of this very recently. I compliment the Minister involved, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who ensured disability and health considerations would be part of the planning guidelines. Some county councils and other local authorities across the country have included, in their corporate plans, requirements for disability-proofing. I would like to believe the councils that have not done so already will do so. Equally, many councils have adopted the principles of the Barcelona agreement, so a commitment exists. As a number of speakers have said, it is not just a case of policy, there must be a consciousness within the public service so people think "disability" and act accordingly. That ethos should pertain throughout the public service.

I recommend to the Minister increasing the six Departments that are part of the sectoral plan to include others. The point has been well made by Senator Phelan and others that we should seek effective disability proofing within each Department and State agency. The Department of Agriculture and Food, for example, is not included. Many farmers are disabled, some through occupational injuries, and it is imperative that they are able to access Teagasc buildings, the Department's offices, etc.

I hope each Department will be engaged and involved in that whole process. Access to public buildings is a prerequisite as regards the physically challenged in particular. It is imperative that all buildings, not only those in public ownership, conform to those requirements. Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify whether buildings that are leased from the private sector, possibly on a short-term basis in some cases, are subject to the same constraints as regards accessibility. There are courts, Garda stations and council offices. There are post offices in rural areas, for example, which are not owned by An Post. Those are all areas where it is essential that people with disabilities who have access problems are afforded the opportunity to transact their public business.

Apart from access, another important component of the Bill concerns employment. The 3% guideline for the health sector and local government is being met, but in the manner of a patchwork quilt. It is not being adhered to uniformly across the country. There is a need to stipulate that this percentage is a minimum. I am pleased to note there is a provision in the Bill for this figure to be reviewed and hopefully this will be upwards. It is also worth noting there are anti-discrimination measures in the employment equality legislation and that is an important step in its own right.

The Disability Legislation Consultation Group, DLCG has done good work. I note the number of meetings that have been held, both with the Taoiseach and the relevant Minister of State, Deputy Fahey. Despite what some Members said, including the last speaker from the Opposition, it is worth putting on the record that many of the key Government amendments reflect that consultation process. For example, in reply to suggestions that the legislation should be reviewed after three years, the Bill has been amended to provide for a review of the operation of the legislation not later than five years after commencement. Following concerns that the definition of disability did not include those with mental health impairment or childhood conditions requiring early intervention, the definition of "substantial restriction" has been amended to include significantly disordered cognitive processes, and provision for intervention early in life designed to ameliorate a disability.

In response to calls for an alternative means of redress, the Government offered the DLCG the option of the Ombudsman instead of the appeals process. That has not necessarily been adopted by the DLCG. In response to criticism about the complexity of the redress system, the Bill was amended to remove the option of the HSE or education service provider refusing to implement the recommendation of a complaints officer. In reply to a request for means for enforcing the statutory timeframes for assessment, the Bill now contains an additional ground of redress if an assessment is not commenced or completed within the statutory timescale.

In response to calls that the service preferences of the individual be considered in the assessment process, the Bill has been amended to note the views of the person being assessed concerning his or her needs and preferences. The Bill now contains a review procedure whereby the National Council for Special Education decides whether to comply with a request by a liaison officer to assist in the preparation of a service statement. This arrangement is in line with a similar provision in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004.

On the issue of housing, which an Opposition Member asserted was excluded completely, in order to take account of concerns about the wider needs of people with disabilities, the sectoral plan of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will specifically include housing and accommodation.

Following proposals for more flexibility in employing people with disabilities in the public service, the Bill has been amended to allow a Minister to make specific provision for work experience contracts for people with disabilities. Senator Coonan and another Senator mentioned how difficult it was to interpret and read the Bill. In response to calls for information to be made available in a variety of disability accessible formats, public bodies will now be obliged to provide easy to read editions of certain publications for persons with intellectual disabilities.

Further amendments were sought and five key issues were put forward by the DLCG. There have been further discussions with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister in this regard as well as full participation at the highest level of Government and there are indications of further movement as regards a number of those issues. While the rights issue has overshadowed much of the Bill's positive sections which are going to impact beneficially on the disability sector, it is important that these are not overlooked or swamped in that debate.

I am glad that section 47 of the Disability Bill 2001 has been removed. That section provided that the State was protected against any type of litigation. That is a fundamental shift in policy that has not, perhaps, received the acknowledgement it deserves. The whole rights-based issue as advocated by the DLCG involves assessments that are not resource dependent. The Bill gives a right to independent assessment, but the implementation will be resource dependent. That is not discriminatory. I am not aware of any service that is not resource dependent. It is consistent with the rights of others as well. In a very cogent and well argued contribution to this debate, Senator Dardis mentioned that no country has automatic resources available to deal with issues in this or other areas. All are subject to the Executive and that is as it should be.

The issue of justiciable rights and access to the courts should be examined against the background of what happened in the education area. The legal costs were in the proportion of €4 for every €1 given by way of settlement. To couple that with the delays involved in court procedures and to draft a Bill that inevitably leads to litigation would drain resources that could be employed more effectively in improving the lot of the disabled. The Government's policy in this area of increasing investment and building the capacity is the way forward. All services are subject to resource availability. I am adamant that in principle the Executive must decide on resource priorities. This should not be a matter for the Judiciary.

Like any Bill, experience teaches that there is need for improvements or amendment in light of how the legislation operates. I am glad there is statutory provision in the Bill for a review after five years. I have the utmost confidence in the political system and disability sector to highlight improvements that are required as and when they arise and are identified. I have no doubt that the Bill and the review will ensure that the physically and mentally challenged in our society will be given an equal opportunity to all others and this will enhance and improve their quality of life. As others have said, this is their due. I welcome the Bill as a quantum leap in that direction.