This Government was never going to introduce effective, "rights-based" legislation for people with disabilities, because of the potential long-term cost implications of such a measure.
But it has gone some distance in allocating extra money to prop up inadequate services and facilities that were grossly under-funded in the past. Of course, it is not enough. And the organisation Namhi, representing up to 28,000 disabled people and their families, has complained that the Government is failing to respond to the legitimate concerns of its members.
The Disability Bill, at present before the Dáil, is a pale shadow of what was promised by the Taoiseach following the forced withdrawal of the original measure in 2002. After the success of the Special Olympics in 2003, Bertie Ahern undertook to prioritise disability issues in Ireland and to introduce legislation "better than anywhere else in the world". That ambition has not been realised. The present Bill is far too circumscribed in its approach to the provision of services and to the rights of disabled people to qualify as ground-breaking legislation. And it has been criticised on a number of grounds by the Human Rights Commission.
Specifically, the Government has failed to take on board the concept of "a progressive realisation of rights" under which proper services will be provided within a set number of years. This approach was favoured by the Human Rights Commission and by the Government's own advisory group. Instead, services will continue to be provided as financial resources - and political imperatives - allow. In addition, while people with disabilities will be entitled to an assessment of their needs, there will be no obligation on the health boards or the Government to provide the services specified. And while a complaint may be made to the Ombudsman about the adequacy of these services, recourse to the courts will be blocked.
This legislation was driven by high-profile court cases, such as those involving Jamie Sinnott and Paul O'Donoghue. And while the judiciary was not in a position at the time to direct the legislature on what to do, it did draw embarrassing public attention to the Government's failure to meet its Constitutional responsibilities. This Bill is designed to exclude further judicial intervention, other than on a point of law. And, in the absence of detailed sectoral plans about how the economic and social rights of those with disabilities will be upheld, it grants service providers extremely wide discretion. The focus of the Government appears to be on assessment and appeals mechanisms and personnel, rather than on providing new and better services. That must change.