15 June 2005
Dr. Henry: I support the Labour Party's useful amendment. This is a very important part of the Bill and involves the assessment of the person applying and stating he or she has a disability.
I am also very concerned about the point raised by Senator Norris. The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland has been in touch with me and I presume its concerns relate to the definition of disability in the Bill which states that the person must have an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment. As Senator Norris said, relapses and remissions can occur in cases of multiple sclerosis and other conditions. This is why this amendment is very important, so that a person would be in a position to challenge the assessment and have it reexamined. I hope the Minister of State takes Senator Kett's advice on board because he has a considerable amount of experience in dealing with people with disability. The amendment would be an additional improvement to the Bill.
...
Dr. Henry: I think the Minister is correct in not making the Bill too prescriptive. This would lead to great problems with exclusion of people one felt were included. The Minister's example of bipolar disorder was a good one. An enduring disability means that the underlying condition is enduring and not that one must have the symptoms or signs of the condition at the time.
People with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty and to be excluded from the community. The thrust of this Bill is to ensure they are helped but also that society be helped with the inclusion of more people in the life of the State, for example, in the fields of work or culture. This is of benefit to all of us. The points made by Senator O'Meara, supported by Senator Kett who has experience in this area, are worth considering and I hope the Minister notes these and accepts the amendment.
...
Dr. Henry: The thrust of the Bill is to integrate people with disabilities into society. That is of benefit to everyone as well as to the individuals concerned. This is an area where we have influence in a way that can be measured. It would be wise of the Minister to accept this amendment given that it is receiving support from all sides of the House.
Senator Quinn has rightly been praised for the amount of employment he gives to people with disabilities in his business. However, he is not employing them because he believes he is a charity. These people are well able to do the work. The Senator is not doing this as a sop to society. I meet these people in the shop in Blackrock and they are well able to do the work. We must also take note of the dreadful levels of unemployment among people with disabilities. We now have a chance to include something measurable in the legislation. We would be most grateful if the Minister would accept Senator Terry's amendment. Be she a woman or lady, she would be delighted to get it accepted under any guise.
...
Dr. Henry: This is very disappointing. I fully support what Senator Terry said. All that is being sought is the possibility of increasing the public service employment quota above 3% for people with disabilities. No commitment is being made to increase it beyond that level. It it very little to ask. It is being sought so there will be some numerical target to achieve. Senator Terry is quite right in saying we strongly suspect that many Departments and other public bodies do not currently employ even 3% of staff with disabilities. It is difficult to obtain the relevant figures. This amendment represents an attempt by the Oireachtas to show solidarity with people with disabilities who are seeking employment. They are seeking jobs, not charity.
...
Dr. Henry: I support the comments made by Senator Dardis. I have also been contacted by representatives of People with Disabilities in Ireland. It would be dreadful if this Bill, which has been introduced to assist people with disabilities, were in any way to remove some of their rights under existing legislation. I am sure that is not the Minister of State's intention, but he can ensure it will not happen by accepting Senator Terry's amendment.
...
Dr. Henry: No one denies there has been a significant increase in the amount of resources spent on people with disabilities, so that is not a problem. I cannot remember any other Act where "resources allowing" was written into the Long Title. On the matter of the Bill pertaining to several Departments, what about the Children Act 2001, which spanned several Departments and required considerable resources? The resources have not yet been made available to implement the provisions of the Act but this is beside the point. We did not put in the Long Title of the Act that we would only invest whatever resources were available as we all knew this.
4 o'clock
These words were not in the Long Title of the Mental Health Act 2001. We knew there would be trouble regarding resources but we expected resources to be made available. We were not going to say that these words were an excuse for not investing something. As the Leader said, this is about what is available and what can be provided for these people. I am well aware of the extraordinary legislation that sometimes comes from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding financial implications. I was utterly astonished to read the explanatory memorandum at the end of the Criminal Law Insanity Bill, which states there are no financial implications. Of course there will be difficulties regarding funds and we praise the Government for providing extra resources for this area. However, our argument is with putting an excuse into the Long Title of the Bill which is not present in any other piece of legislation that any of us can recall.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
