Disability Bill 2004 - Second Stage Debate on the 1st June 2005

Disability Bill 2004 - Second Stage Debate on 1st June 2005

Mr. Norris: I also compliment the Leader of
the House, since the material I received from the
Disability Federation of Ireland stated she had
given it an undertaking that there would be ample
time for discussion of the Bill in the House. It is
clear from the provision of time yesterday, today
and tomorrow that there will be such provision.
That is very good.
The Bill is a kind of dialectic. An earlier Bill
had to be withdrawn because it was plainly unsatisfactory.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with
what was said by Senator Dardis in his reasonable
speech. Other things may need to be tidied up
and I understand from the Minister’s speech that
he is tabling further Government amendments.
This Bill is in the process of being improved all
the time and this Chamber will play a role in that.
I am glad the Minister has accepted the idea of
a review. I made this point in discussions with
groups representing people with disabilities as I
thought it was a sensible thing. They told me that
they had already made a suggestion of three
years, but the Minister suggested five years and
they seemed to be quite comfortable with that.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Fahey): Within
five years?
Mr. Norris: Yes. As a former teacher, it seems
to me that a continuous assessment would be a
good idea. Having a review at the end of three or
five years is not the best way to do it. A process of
continuous assessment from the beginning gives a
far better chance of reaching down into the consequences
of the Bill and finding out what
happens.
Part 3 is the most significant element of the
Bill, as it deals with access to services, public
buildings and so on, as well as the sectoral plans.
We must arrive at a situation where disability
becomes a prime factor in Government policy
and is factored into every Department. Someone
in each Department should be charged with
responsibility to enforce such a policy. Perhaps it
should be the General Secretary.
In a briefing Senator Quinn and I had with disability
groups yesterday, we were told that \38
billion is spent on health services and people with
disabilities get around 3% of that which is
roughly proportional to their size. However, they
made the point that they are excluded from many
of the services provided for everybody else by virtue
of their circumstances which could be remedied
without a huge amount of expense. The
Government has taken a practical view on this,
which is understandable, but one which is open
for us to challenge. Many people fear that a financial
haemorrhage from a rights-based Bill could
affect the Exchequer. They also fear that it would
be left to the courts to deliver services.
Many people talk about rights — I have been
talking about them all of my life. I have come to
the conclusion that rights are of no use unless one
is in a position to exercise them. One can have
theoretical rights, but unless there are practical
mechanisms whereby one can obtain these rights,
then they are of virtually no use at all.
I was listening to the radio last night and there
was a very good programme about an awards
scheme that was won by a group from the west
of Ireland. The scheme dealt with disability. The
students got themselves into wheelchairs and
went around the town with their companions.
They were helped consistently by members of the
public, but those people never spoke to the
people in the wheelchair. They always spoke to
the person who was with the person in the wheelchair.
The young girl interviewed made the point
that she had a problem with her legs and not with
her brain. This is why people need consultation
and the Government has gone some way to meeting
that need.
I listened to the programme "Outside the
Box", presented by Olan McGowan who had an
accident in his twenties and is now in a wheelchair.
There was a discussion on disability and a
woman representing the blind claimed that he
should be able to play for Ireland or climb Kilimanjaro,
only if it was made accessible. That is at
the outer limit of political correctness and Mr.
McGowan fortunately pointed out that we must
live in the real world. We must attempt to
imagine what the situation is like in human terms,
so that we can be in a position to understand the
desire for rights on the part of the disabled community.
On the other hand, we also need to be
realistic. The Government is moving to some
extent in this direction.
I have a document in front of me from the Disability
Federation of Ireland, indicating that it is
aware that the legislation is coming before the
Seanad. The document states:
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 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 needs.
The federation feels that the Bill needs to focus
on two matters to ensure that people have timely
access to the necessary specialist services and to
ensure that what Ireland has to offer becomes
fully accessible to people with disabilities.
We have not gone far enough in this Bill and I
hope the Minister of State addresses some of the
issues that have been brought to his attention by
the Disability Federation of Ireland. He has
included the Ombudsman in the Bill, but I am
not sure if that is needed. It has been suggested
to me that a disability commissioner is more
appropriate. If the Minister of State accepted
that, it would go a long way towards meeting the
problems of the disabled community.
Mr. Fahey: That is not as strong as the
Ombudsman.
Mr. Norris: That is surprising, given that the
Ombudsman has much on her plate already.
Mr. Fahey: There will be a new division within
the Office of the Ombudsman.
Mr. Norris: I see. Why not have a disability
ombudsman with just this remit?
Mr. Fahey: That is what the appeals officer
does, if we give him the choice.
Mr. Norris: That is an interesting comment and
I will pass it on to the Disability Federation of
Ireland. Its representatives were very interested
in the idea of a disability commissioner based on
the precedent of the language commissioner that
was created recently.
Mr. Fahey: I suggest that the language commissioner
is not at all as strong as the
Ombudsman.
Mr. Norris: I will relay that point back to the
disability groups. I am glad there will be a separate
section in the Office of the Ombusdman. I
understood from the speech by the Minister of
State that it was all coming under the remit of the
Ombudsman, who is already over-burdened. If
the Minister of State can assure the House that
there will be staffing and funding specifically
dedicated to the issue, the Disability Federation
of Ireland may well think that is a very good idea.
The federation also states: "The value of the
public investment is not around whether, for
example, the wheelchair was purchased at the
best possible price or terms, but by the measure
of how it facilitates access for that individual". I
do not see how the two are incompatible. It is a
requirement of the Government to get the best
deal if it is buying services with taxpayers’ money.
Senator Dardis mentioned a number of ways in
which the Government has moved to meet some
of these concerns and the DFI has accepted the
changes.
However, the Government’s response to calls
for the service preferences of the individual to be
considered in the assessment process is that there
will now be a requirement to "note the views" of
the person being assessed. This is entirely
ineffective. I have had my views noted until I am
weary of expressing them but nothing is achieved.
Mr. Kett: Senator Norris’s views have been
noted and ignored.
Mr. Norris: This provision must be copperfastened.
This will have been a useful debate if we have
teased this much out, namely, the clear commitment
to the House by the Minister of State that
there will be ring-fencing of the staffing and
resources for a new section within the Office of
the Ombudsman. That will satisfy the requirements
of the DFI. I am also confident that the
other points made by our briefing group will be
adequately——



Disability Bill 2004 - Committee Stage - 15th June 2005


Mr. Norris: I support Senator O’Meara. This is
an important point. It is instructive, interesting
and perhaps indicative that Senator Kett has
found himself in large measure in agreement. Perhaps
this indicates the Government may be prepared
to look again at the issue. While it is useful
that people can challenge on the basis that procedures
were not fully followed, the contents of
the assessment are the core of the entire matter.
I wish to raise a parallel issue, one where the
issue of the contents of an assessment might be
raised, but which has not been dealt with satisfactorily.
I refer to the inclusion of people with multiple
sclerosis in the definition of disability. Such
people might seek an assessment but they would
in many cases want to challenge an assessment,
multiple sclerosis being a particular kind of disease
from which there can be periods of
remission.
The exclusion of people with multiple sclerosis
from the definition of disability, which seems
quite deliberate on the part of the Government,
is greatly worrying and will lead to circumstances
where they will almost invariably want to challenge
the contents of the assessment. I put it to
the Minister of State that the United Kingdom in
its legislation had a very similar definition which
excluded multiple sclerosis, but it had to change
it. In other words, it changed legislation similar
to that we are now introducing. In any case, we
will probably have to change this legislation
eventually as a result of pressure and the public
highlighting of the issue.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland wrote
to the Minister asking for this disease to be
included in the definition of disability but it has
not received a reply — perhaps I should say the
society wrote to the Department as I do not know
the Minister has seen this correspondence and do
not want to antagonise him by suggesting that.
For that reason, I intend to put down an amendment
on Report Stage to include multiple
sclerosis in the definition of disability.
I understand I am wandering slightly but this
issue is clearly related to the amendment, which
I strongly support.